I am trying to wrap my head around a weird characteristic of implicitely-declared copy constructors. Take the following example. Once the user implements a custom destructor, the copy-constructor isn't trivial anymore, but is still generated.
#include <type_traits>
#include <cstdio>
struct test {
test() = default;
~test() {
}
test(const test&) = default;
int i{42};
};
static_assert(std::is_copy_constructible_v<test>, "werks"); // OK
static_assert(std::is_trivially_copy_constructible_v<test>, "sad"); // FAILS
int main() {
test t;
test t2(t);
printf("%d\n", t2.i);
return 0;
}
Online version : https://godbolt.org/z/t-8_W3
My understanding of trivial constructors is they are generated by the compiler. However, cppreference states :
The generation of the implicitly-defined copy constructor is deprecated if T has a user-defined destructor or user-defined copy assignment operator.
So, it seems there is one more state an implicitly-declared constructor can be in, which is "deprecated". It is not "trivial" and not user implemented, but still generated by your compiler... Is that correct? Does someone know a type trait or workaround to verify if a constructor is "deprecated"?
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire