即使没有 RVO 进化,是否可以使用转换构造函数而不是复制构造函数从函数返回对象(假设编译器不支持任何此类优化)?问题的关键是 C++ std 告诉了什么,有人可以告诉我吗?我得到了 gcc 并编译了下面的代码,在评论中也有几个问题。
class A
{
public:
A(int) {};
A(int, int) {};
private:
A(const A &) = delete;
A & operator = (const A &) = delete;
};
A foo(void)
{// All the CEs below are all the same, which is 'using the deleted function 'A::A(const A&)''.
//return(0); // Not compiled.
//return(A(0)); // Not compiled. ok since the A isn't be copy-able.
//return {0}; // Compiled. Is it a bug of the compiler?
//return({0}); // Not compiled. What happened when returns in '()' implemented?
//return 0; // Not compiled. What happened when returns without '()' and '{}' implemented?
//return ({0, 0}); // Not compiled.
return {0, 0}; // Compiled. Realy??
/*
1. What are the differences in 'return 0', 'return {0}', 'return(0)' and 'return({0})'?
2. Is it any possible to do conversion from source type object 'which is 'int' in this sample' to returning type of
the function directly with only ONE constructor call even if the compiler has no any copying eliminating optimization
but full compatibility with STD? Note that the function 'foo' here has no returning object accepter.
*/
}
int main(void)
{
foo(); // Note that there is no accepter of 'A' here, it's not discussing purpose at this topic of the post.
}
// compiling with the gcc ver. 4.8.1.