Why is the copy constructor called twice in this code snippet?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
I'm playing around with a few things to understand how copy constructors work. But I can't make sense of why the copy constructor is called twice for the creation of x2
. I would have assumed it would be called once when the return value of createX()
is copied into x2
.
I also looked at a few related questions on SO, but as far as I can tell I couldn't find the same simple scenario as I am asking here.
By the way, I'm compiling with -fno-elide-constructors
in order to see what's going on without optimizations.
#include <iostream>
struct X
int i2;
X()
std::cout << "default constructor called" << std::endl;
X(const X& other)
std::cout << "copy constructor called" << std::endl;
;
X createX()
X x;
std::cout << "created x on the stack" << std::endl;
return x;
int main()
X x1;
std::cout << "created x1" << std::endl;
std::cout << "x1: " << x1.i << std::endl << std::endl;
X x2 = createX();
std::cout << "created x2" << std::endl;
std::cout << "x2: " << x2.i << std::endl;
return 0;
This is the output:
default constructor called
created x1
x1: 2
default constructor called
created x on the stack
copy constructor called
copy constructor called
created x2
x2: 2
Can someone help me what I'm missing or overlooking here?
c++ c++14 copy-constructor
add a comment |
I'm playing around with a few things to understand how copy constructors work. But I can't make sense of why the copy constructor is called twice for the creation of x2
. I would have assumed it would be called once when the return value of createX()
is copied into x2
.
I also looked at a few related questions on SO, but as far as I can tell I couldn't find the same simple scenario as I am asking here.
By the way, I'm compiling with -fno-elide-constructors
in order to see what's going on without optimizations.
#include <iostream>
struct X
int i2;
X()
std::cout << "default constructor called" << std::endl;
X(const X& other)
std::cout << "copy constructor called" << std::endl;
;
X createX()
X x;
std::cout << "created x on the stack" << std::endl;
return x;
int main()
X x1;
std::cout << "created x1" << std::endl;
std::cout << "x1: " << x1.i << std::endl << std::endl;
X x2 = createX();
std::cout << "created x2" << std::endl;
std::cout << "x2: " << x2.i << std::endl;
return 0;
This is the output:
default constructor called
created x1
x1: 2
default constructor called
created x on the stack
copy constructor called
copy constructor called
created x2
x2: 2
Can someone help me what I'm missing or overlooking here?
c++ c++14 copy-constructor
add a comment |
I'm playing around with a few things to understand how copy constructors work. But I can't make sense of why the copy constructor is called twice for the creation of x2
. I would have assumed it would be called once when the return value of createX()
is copied into x2
.
I also looked at a few related questions on SO, but as far as I can tell I couldn't find the same simple scenario as I am asking here.
By the way, I'm compiling with -fno-elide-constructors
in order to see what's going on without optimizations.
#include <iostream>
struct X
int i2;
X()
std::cout << "default constructor called" << std::endl;
X(const X& other)
std::cout << "copy constructor called" << std::endl;
;
X createX()
X x;
std::cout << "created x on the stack" << std::endl;
return x;
int main()
X x1;
std::cout << "created x1" << std::endl;
std::cout << "x1: " << x1.i << std::endl << std::endl;
X x2 = createX();
std::cout << "created x2" << std::endl;
std::cout << "x2: " << x2.i << std::endl;
return 0;
This is the output:
default constructor called
created x1
x1: 2
default constructor called
created x on the stack
copy constructor called
copy constructor called
created x2
x2: 2
Can someone help me what I'm missing or overlooking here?
c++ c++14 copy-constructor
I'm playing around with a few things to understand how copy constructors work. But I can't make sense of why the copy constructor is called twice for the creation of x2
. I would have assumed it would be called once when the return value of createX()
is copied into x2
.
I also looked at a few related questions on SO, but as far as I can tell I couldn't find the same simple scenario as I am asking here.
By the way, I'm compiling with -fno-elide-constructors
in order to see what's going on without optimizations.
#include <iostream>
struct X
int i2;
X()
std::cout << "default constructor called" << std::endl;
X(const X& other)
std::cout << "copy constructor called" << std::endl;
;
X createX()
X x;
std::cout << "created x on the stack" << std::endl;
return x;
int main()
X x1;
std::cout << "created x1" << std::endl;
std::cout << "x1: " << x1.i << std::endl << std::endl;
X x2 = createX();
std::cout << "created x2" << std::endl;
std::cout << "x2: " << x2.i << std::endl;
return 0;
This is the output:
default constructor called
created x1
x1: 2
default constructor called
created x on the stack
copy constructor called
copy constructor called
created x2
x2: 2
Can someone help me what I'm missing or overlooking here?
c++ c++14 copy-constructor
c++ c++14 copy-constructor
edited Feb 28 at 16:08
NathanOliver
96.8k16137211
96.8k16137211
asked Feb 28 at 15:37
c_studentc_student
32311
32311
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
What you have to remember here is that the return value of a function is a distinct object. When you do
return x;
you copy initialize the return value object with x
. This is the first copy constructor call you see. Then
X x2 = createX();
uses the returned object to copy initialize x2
so that is the second copy you see.
One thing to note is that
return x;
will try to move x
into the return object if it can. Had you made a move constructor you would have seen this called. The reason for this is that since local objects go out of scope at the end of the function, the compiler treats the object as an rvalue and only if that does not find a valid overload does it fall back to returning it as an lvalue.
1
@FrançoisAndrieux Yeah. Updating the wording to make that more explicit that isn't something that is just allowed but has to be done.
– NathanOliver
Feb 28 at 15:50
1
I'm not sure of the details of-fno-elide-constructors
but I'm assuming it prevents RVO.
– François Andrieux
Feb 28 at 15:54
1
@FrançoisAndrieux It does not prevent guaranteed RVO if using C++17 since that is mandated that it has to happen, there isn't actually a temporary object created. See here where it only uses a single copy as the second one is mandated not to happen.
– NathanOliver
Feb 28 at 15:56
1
So we have to assume OP is using a pre-C++17 standard?
– François Andrieux
Feb 28 at 15:57
1
Kind of. The compiler they are using could have a bug, or they are using pre C++17. I'm inclined to believe it is the latter.
– NathanOliver
Feb 28 at 16:00
|
show 1 more comment
First copy is in return of createX
X createX()
X x;
std::cout << "created x on the stack" << std::endl;
return x; // First copy
Second one is to create x2 from the temporary return by createX.
X x2 = createX(); // Second copy
Notice that in C++17, second copy is forced to be elided.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
StackExchange.snippets.init();
);
);
, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f54929274%2fwhy-is-the-copy-constructor-called-twice-in-this-code-snippet%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
What you have to remember here is that the return value of a function is a distinct object. When you do
return x;
you copy initialize the return value object with x
. This is the first copy constructor call you see. Then
X x2 = createX();
uses the returned object to copy initialize x2
so that is the second copy you see.
One thing to note is that
return x;
will try to move x
into the return object if it can. Had you made a move constructor you would have seen this called. The reason for this is that since local objects go out of scope at the end of the function, the compiler treats the object as an rvalue and only if that does not find a valid overload does it fall back to returning it as an lvalue.
1
@FrançoisAndrieux Yeah. Updating the wording to make that more explicit that isn't something that is just allowed but has to be done.
– NathanOliver
Feb 28 at 15:50
1
I'm not sure of the details of-fno-elide-constructors
but I'm assuming it prevents RVO.
– François Andrieux
Feb 28 at 15:54
1
@FrançoisAndrieux It does not prevent guaranteed RVO if using C++17 since that is mandated that it has to happen, there isn't actually a temporary object created. See here where it only uses a single copy as the second one is mandated not to happen.
– NathanOliver
Feb 28 at 15:56
1
So we have to assume OP is using a pre-C++17 standard?
– François Andrieux
Feb 28 at 15:57
1
Kind of. The compiler they are using could have a bug, or they are using pre C++17. I'm inclined to believe it is the latter.
– NathanOliver
Feb 28 at 16:00
|
show 1 more comment
What you have to remember here is that the return value of a function is a distinct object. When you do
return x;
you copy initialize the return value object with x
. This is the first copy constructor call you see. Then
X x2 = createX();
uses the returned object to copy initialize x2
so that is the second copy you see.
One thing to note is that
return x;
will try to move x
into the return object if it can. Had you made a move constructor you would have seen this called. The reason for this is that since local objects go out of scope at the end of the function, the compiler treats the object as an rvalue and only if that does not find a valid overload does it fall back to returning it as an lvalue.
1
@FrançoisAndrieux Yeah. Updating the wording to make that more explicit that isn't something that is just allowed but has to be done.
– NathanOliver
Feb 28 at 15:50
1
I'm not sure of the details of-fno-elide-constructors
but I'm assuming it prevents RVO.
– François Andrieux
Feb 28 at 15:54
1
@FrançoisAndrieux It does not prevent guaranteed RVO if using C++17 since that is mandated that it has to happen, there isn't actually a temporary object created. See here where it only uses a single copy as the second one is mandated not to happen.
– NathanOliver
Feb 28 at 15:56
1
So we have to assume OP is using a pre-C++17 standard?
– François Andrieux
Feb 28 at 15:57
1
Kind of. The compiler they are using could have a bug, or they are using pre C++17. I'm inclined to believe it is the latter.
– NathanOliver
Feb 28 at 16:00
|
show 1 more comment
What you have to remember here is that the return value of a function is a distinct object. When you do
return x;
you copy initialize the return value object with x
. This is the first copy constructor call you see. Then
X x2 = createX();
uses the returned object to copy initialize x2
so that is the second copy you see.
One thing to note is that
return x;
will try to move x
into the return object if it can. Had you made a move constructor you would have seen this called. The reason for this is that since local objects go out of scope at the end of the function, the compiler treats the object as an rvalue and only if that does not find a valid overload does it fall back to returning it as an lvalue.
What you have to remember here is that the return value of a function is a distinct object. When you do
return x;
you copy initialize the return value object with x
. This is the first copy constructor call you see. Then
X x2 = createX();
uses the returned object to copy initialize x2
so that is the second copy you see.
One thing to note is that
return x;
will try to move x
into the return object if it can. Had you made a move constructor you would have seen this called. The reason for this is that since local objects go out of scope at the end of the function, the compiler treats the object as an rvalue and only if that does not find a valid overload does it fall back to returning it as an lvalue.
edited Feb 28 at 15:49
answered Feb 28 at 15:41
NathanOliverNathanOliver
96.8k16137211
96.8k16137211
1
@FrançoisAndrieux Yeah. Updating the wording to make that more explicit that isn't something that is just allowed but has to be done.
– NathanOliver
Feb 28 at 15:50
1
I'm not sure of the details of-fno-elide-constructors
but I'm assuming it prevents RVO.
– François Andrieux
Feb 28 at 15:54
1
@FrançoisAndrieux It does not prevent guaranteed RVO if using C++17 since that is mandated that it has to happen, there isn't actually a temporary object created. See here where it only uses a single copy as the second one is mandated not to happen.
– NathanOliver
Feb 28 at 15:56
1
So we have to assume OP is using a pre-C++17 standard?
– François Andrieux
Feb 28 at 15:57
1
Kind of. The compiler they are using could have a bug, or they are using pre C++17. I'm inclined to believe it is the latter.
– NathanOliver
Feb 28 at 16:00
|
show 1 more comment
1
@FrançoisAndrieux Yeah. Updating the wording to make that more explicit that isn't something that is just allowed but has to be done.
– NathanOliver
Feb 28 at 15:50
1
I'm not sure of the details of-fno-elide-constructors
but I'm assuming it prevents RVO.
– François Andrieux
Feb 28 at 15:54
1
@FrançoisAndrieux It does not prevent guaranteed RVO if using C++17 since that is mandated that it has to happen, there isn't actually a temporary object created. See here where it only uses a single copy as the second one is mandated not to happen.
– NathanOliver
Feb 28 at 15:56
1
So we have to assume OP is using a pre-C++17 standard?
– François Andrieux
Feb 28 at 15:57
1
Kind of. The compiler they are using could have a bug, or they are using pre C++17. I'm inclined to believe it is the latter.
– NathanOliver
Feb 28 at 16:00
1
1
@FrançoisAndrieux Yeah. Updating the wording to make that more explicit that isn't something that is just allowed but has to be done.
– NathanOliver
Feb 28 at 15:50
@FrançoisAndrieux Yeah. Updating the wording to make that more explicit that isn't something that is just allowed but has to be done.
– NathanOliver
Feb 28 at 15:50
1
1
I'm not sure of the details of
-fno-elide-constructors
but I'm assuming it prevents RVO.– François Andrieux
Feb 28 at 15:54
I'm not sure of the details of
-fno-elide-constructors
but I'm assuming it prevents RVO.– François Andrieux
Feb 28 at 15:54
1
1
@FrançoisAndrieux It does not prevent guaranteed RVO if using C++17 since that is mandated that it has to happen, there isn't actually a temporary object created. See here where it only uses a single copy as the second one is mandated not to happen.
– NathanOliver
Feb 28 at 15:56
@FrançoisAndrieux It does not prevent guaranteed RVO if using C++17 since that is mandated that it has to happen, there isn't actually a temporary object created. See here where it only uses a single copy as the second one is mandated not to happen.
– NathanOliver
Feb 28 at 15:56
1
1
So we have to assume OP is using a pre-C++17 standard?
– François Andrieux
Feb 28 at 15:57
So we have to assume OP is using a pre-C++17 standard?
– François Andrieux
Feb 28 at 15:57
1
1
Kind of. The compiler they are using could have a bug, or they are using pre C++17. I'm inclined to believe it is the latter.
– NathanOliver
Feb 28 at 16:00
Kind of. The compiler they are using could have a bug, or they are using pre C++17. I'm inclined to believe it is the latter.
– NathanOliver
Feb 28 at 16:00
|
show 1 more comment
First copy is in return of createX
X createX()
X x;
std::cout << "created x on the stack" << std::endl;
return x; // First copy
Second one is to create x2 from the temporary return by createX.
X x2 = createX(); // Second copy
Notice that in C++17, second copy is forced to be elided.
add a comment |
First copy is in return of createX
X createX()
X x;
std::cout << "created x on the stack" << std::endl;
return x; // First copy
Second one is to create x2 from the temporary return by createX.
X x2 = createX(); // Second copy
Notice that in C++17, second copy is forced to be elided.
add a comment |
First copy is in return of createX
X createX()
X x;
std::cout << "created x on the stack" << std::endl;
return x; // First copy
Second one is to create x2 from the temporary return by createX.
X x2 = createX(); // Second copy
Notice that in C++17, second copy is forced to be elided.
First copy is in return of createX
X createX()
X x;
std::cout << "created x on the stack" << std::endl;
return x; // First copy
Second one is to create x2 from the temporary return by createX.
X x2 = createX(); // Second copy
Notice that in C++17, second copy is forced to be elided.
answered Feb 28 at 15:41
Jarod42Jarod42
119k12104189
119k12104189
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f54929274%2fwhy-is-the-copy-constructor-called-twice-in-this-code-snippet%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown