使用非静态数据成员和嵌套类构造函数的类初始化时出错 [英] Error when using in-class initialization of non-static data member and nested class constructor

问题描述

以下代码非常简单，我预计它应该编译好。

The following code is quite trivial and I expected that it should compile fine.

struct A
{
    struct B
    {
        int i = 0;
    };

    B b;

    A(const B& _b = B())
        : b(_b)
    {}
};

我用g ++版本4.7.2，4.8.1，clang ++ 3.2和3.3测试了这个代码。除了此代码上的g ++ 4.7.2 segfaults的事实（ http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla） /show_bug.cgi?id=57770 ），其他测试的编译器给出的错误消息解释不多。

I've tested this code with g++ version 4.7.2, 4.8.1, clang++ 3.2 and 3.3. Apart from fact that g++ 4.7.2 segfaults on this code (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57770), the other tested compilers give error messages that don't explain much.

g ++ 4.8.1：

g++ 4.8.1:

test.cpp: In constructor ‘constexpr A::B::B()’:
test.cpp:3:12: error: constructor required before non-static data member for ‘A::B::i’ has been parsed
     struct B
            ^
test.cpp: At global scope:
test.cpp:11:23: note: synthesized method ‘constexpr A::B::B()’ first required here 
     A(const B& _b = B())
                       ^

clang ++ 3.2和3.3：

clang++ 3.2 and 3.3:

test.cpp:11:21: error: defaulted default constructor of 'B' cannot be used by non-static data member initializer which appears before end of class definition
    A(const B& _b = B())
                    ^

使这个代码可编译是可能的，它应该没有什么区别。有两个选项：

Making this code compilable is possible and seems like it should make no difference. There are two options:

struct B
{
    int i = 0;
    B(){} // using B()=default; works only for clang++
};

或

struct B
{
    int i;
    B() : i(0) {} // classic c++98 initialization
};

这个代码真的不正确或者编译器错了吗？

Is this code really incorrect or are the compilers wrong?

推荐答案

这个代码真的不正确或者编译器错了吗？

Is this code really incorrect or are the compilers wrong?

好吧，没有。该标准有一个缺陷 - 它说， A 被认为是完成，而解析初始化为 B :: i ，并且 B :: B（）（它使用 B :: i 的初始化器） A 的定义。这显然是循环的。考虑这个：

Well, neither. The standard has a defect -- it says both that A is considered complete while parsing the initializer for B::i, and that B::B() (which uses the initializer for B::i) can be used within the definition of A. That's clearly cyclic. Consider this:

struct A {
  struct B {
    int i = (A(), 0);
  };
  A() noexcept(!noexcept(B()));
};

这有一个矛盾： B :: B（）隐含 noexcept iff A（）不抛出， A 不会抛出iff B :: B（）是不是 noexcept 。这一领域还有许多其他循环和矛盾。

This has a contradiction: B::B() is implicitly noexcept iff A() does not throw, and A() does not throw iff B::B() is not noexcept. There are a number of other cycles and contradictions in this area.

这是由核心问题跟踪1360 和 1397 。请特别注意核心问题1397中的此注释：

This is tracked by core issues 1360 and 1397. Note in particular this note in core issue 1397:

也许解决这个问题的最好方法是，静态数据成员初始化器使用其类的默认构造函数。

Perhaps the best way of addressing this would be to make it ill-formed for a non-static data member initializer to use a defaulted constructor of its class.

这是我在Clang中实现的规则的一种特殊情况解决此问题。 Clang的规则是，在解析该类的非静态数据成员初始化器之前，不能使用类的默认默认构造函数。因此，Clang在这里发布诊断：

That's a special case of the rule that I implemented in Clang to resolve this issue. Clang's rule is that a defaulted default constructor for a class cannot be used before the non-static data member initializers for that class are parsed. Hence Clang issues a diagnostic here:

    A(const B& _b = B())
                    ^

...因为Clang在解析默认初始化器之前解析默认参数，并且此默认参数需要 B 的默认初始化器已被解析（为了隐式定义 B :: B（））。

... because Clang parses default arguments before it parses default initializers, and this default argument would require B's default initializers to have already been parsed (in order to implicitly define B::B()).

这篇关于使用非静态数据成员和嵌套类构造函数的类初始化时出错的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！