My code:
#include <iostream>
#include <functional>
using namespace std;
struct A {
A() = default;
A(const A&) {
cout << "copied A" << endl;
}
};
void foo(A a) {}
int main(int argc, const char * argv[]) {
std::function<void(A)> f = &foo;
A a;
f(a);
return 0;
}
I'm seeing "copied A" twice on the console. Why is the object being copied twice, not once? How can I prevent this properly?
You can recover the desired behavior by always using thread-local copies of the std::function because they'll each have an isolated copy of the state variables.
Instances of std::function can store, copy, and invoke any CopyConstructible Callable target -- functions, lambda expressions, bind expressions, or other function objects, as well as pointers to member functions and pointers to data members.
The copy constructor is a constructor which creates an object by initializing it with an object of the same class, which has been created previously. The copy constructor is used to − Initialize one object from another of the same type. Copy an object to pass it as an argument to a function.
The copy() function in C++ is used to copy the values from an array/vector within a specified range to another array/vector. This function is available in the <algorithm. h> header file.
The specialization std::function<R(Args...)>
has a call operator with the following declaration:
R operator()(Args...) const;
In your case, this means that the operator takes A
. As such, calling f(a)
results in a copy due to the pass-by-value semantics. However, the underlying foo
target also accepts its argument by value. Thus there will be a second copy when the parameter to f
is forwarded to foo
.
This is by design, and in fact if A
had a move constructor there would be only one copy followed by a move construction -- and calling f(std::move(a))
would only result in two move constructions. If you feel that two copies are too much you need to reconsider whether both foo
and f
should take A
instead of e.g. A const&
, and/or whether A
can have a sensible move constructor.
You can also do std::function<void(A const&)> f = &foo;
without modifying foo
. But you should reserve that for the case where modifying foo
is beyond your control, and/or making A
cheaply move constructible is not an option. There is nothing wrong with passing by value in C++11, so I suggest that either both should take A
, or both should take A const&
.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With