copy assignment operator in c class

Copy assignment operator

A copy assignment operator of class T is a non-template non-static member function with the name operator = that takes exactly one parameter of type T , T & , const T & , volatile T & , or const volatile T & . A type with a public copy assignment operator is CopyAssignable .

[ edit ] Syntax

[ edit ] Explanation

• Typical declaration of a copy assignment operator when copy-and-swap idiom can be used
• Typical declaration of a copy assignment operator when copy-and-swap idiom cannot be used
• Forcing a copy assignment operator to be generated by the compiler
• Avoiding implicit copy assignment

The copy assignment operator is called whenever selected by overload resolution , e.g. when an object appears on the left side of an assignment expression.

[ edit ] Implicitly-declared copy assignment operator

If no user-defined copy assignment operators are provided for a class type ( struct , class , or union ), the compiler will always declare one as an inline public member of the class. This implicitly-declared copy assignment operator has the form T & T :: operator = ( const T & ) if all of the following is true:

• each direct base B of T has a copy assignment operator whose parameters are B or const B& or const volatile B &
• each non-static data member M of T of class type or array of class type has a copy assignment operator whose parameters are M or const M& or const volatile M &

Otherwise the implicitly-declared copy assignment operator is declared as T & T :: operator = ( T & ) . (Note that due to these rules, the implicitly-declared copy assignment operator cannot bind to a volatile lvalue argument)

A class can have multiple copy assignment operators, e.g. both T & T :: operator = ( const T & ) and T & T :: operator = ( T ) . If some user-defined copy assignment operators are present, the user may still force the generation of the implicitly declared copy assignment operator with the keyword default .

Because the copy assignment operator is always declared for any class, the base class assignment operator is always hidden. If a using-declaration is used to bring in the assignment operator from the base class, and its argument type could be the same as the argument type of the implicit assignment operator of the derived class, the using-declaration is also hidden by the implicit declaration.

[ edit ] Deleted implicitly-declared copy assignment operator

The implicitly-declared or defaulted copy assignment operator for class T is defined as deleted in any of the following is true:

• T has a non-static data member that is const
• T has a non-static data member of a reference type.
• T has a non-static data member that cannot be copy-assigned (has deleted, inaccessible, or ambiguous copy assignment operator)
• T has direct or virtual base class that cannot be copy-assigned (has deleted, inaccessible, or ambiguous move assignment operator)
• T has a user-declared move constructor
• T has a user-declared move assignment operator

[ edit ] Trivial copy assignment operator

The implicitly-declared copy assignment operator for class T is trivial if all of the following is true:

• T has no virtual member functions
• T has no virtual base classes
• The copy assignment operator selected for every direct base of T is trivial
• The copy assignment operator selected for every non-static class type (or array of class type) memeber of T is trivial

A trivial copy assignment operator makes a copy of the object representation as if by std:: memmove . All data types compatible with the C language (POD types) are trivially copy-assignable.

[ edit ] Implicitly-defined copy assignment operator

If the implicitly-declared copy assignment operator is not deleted or trivial, it is defined (that is, a function body is generated and compiled) by the compiler. For union types, the implicitly-defined copy assignment copies the object representation (as by std:: memmove ). For non-union class types ( class and struct ), the operator performs member-wise copy assignment of the object's bases and non-static members, in their initialization order, using, using built-in assignment for the scalars and copy assignment operator for class types.

The generation of the implicitly-defined copy assignment operator is deprecated (since C++11) if T has a user-declared destructor or user-declared copy constructor.

[ edit ] Notes

If both copy and move assignment operators are provided, overload resolution selects the move assignment if the argument is an rvalue (either prvalue such as a nameless temporary or xvalue such as the result of std:: move ), and selects the copy assignment if the argument is lvalue (named object or a function/operator returning lvalue reference). If only the copy assignment is provided, all argument categories select it (as long as it takes its argument by value or as reference to const, since rvalues can bind to const references), which makes copy assignment the fallback for move assignment, when move is unavailable.

[ edit ] Copy and swap

Copy assignment operator can be expressed in terms of copy constructor, destructor, and the swap() member function, if one is provided:

T & T :: operator = ( T arg ) { // copy/move constructor is called to construct arg     swap ( arg ) ;     // resources exchanged between *this and arg     return * this ; }   // destructor is called to release the resources formerly held by *this

For non-throwing swap(), this form provides strong exception guarantee . For rvalue arguments, this form automatically invokes the move constructor, and is sometimes referred to as "unifying assignment operator" (as in, both copy and move).

[ edit ] Example

• Graphics and multimedia
• Language Features
• Unix/Linux programming
• Source Code
• Standard Library
• Tips and Tricks
• Tools and Libraries
• Windows API
• Copy constructors, assignment operators,

Copy constructors, assignment operators, and exception safe assignment

cppreference.com

Copy assignment operator

A copy assignment operator of class T is a non-template non-static member function with the name operator = that takes exactly one parameter of type T , T & , const T & , volatile T & , or const volatile T & . For a type to be CopyAssignable , it must have a public copy assignment operator.

[ edit ] Syntax

[ edit ] Explanation

• Typical declaration of a copy assignment operator when copy-and-swap idiom can be used
• Typical declaration of a copy assignment operator when copy-and-swap idiom cannot be used (non-swappable type or degraded performance)
• Forcing a copy assignment operator to be generated by the compiler
• Avoiding implicit copy assignment

The copy assignment operator is called whenever selected by overload resolution , e.g. when an object appears on the left side of an assignment expression.

[ edit ] Implicitly-declared copy assignment operator

If no user-defined copy assignment operators are provided for a class type ( struct , class , or union ), the compiler will always declare one as an inline public member of the class. This implicitly-declared copy assignment operator has the form T & T :: operator = ( const T & ) if all of the following is true:

• each direct base B of T has a copy assignment operator whose parameters are B or const B& or const volatile B &
• each non-static data member M of T of class type or array of class type has a copy assignment operator whose parameters are M or const M& or const volatile M &

Otherwise the implicitly-declared copy assignment operator is declared as T & T :: operator = ( T & ) . (Note that due to these rules, the implicitly-declared copy assignment operator cannot bind to a volatile lvalue argument)

A class can have multiple copy assignment operators, e.g. both T & T :: operator = ( const T & ) and T & T :: operator = ( T ) . If some user-defined copy assignment operators are present, the user may still force the generation of the implicitly declared copy assignment operator with the keyword default . (since C++11)

Because the copy assignment operator is always declared for any class, the base class assignment operator is always hidden. If a using-declaration is used to bring in the assignment operator from the base class, and its argument type could be the same as the argument type of the implicit assignment operator of the derived class, the using-declaration is also hidden by the implicit declaration.

[ edit ] Deleted implicitly-declared copy assignment operator

A implicitly-declared copy assignment operator for class T is defined as deleted if any of the following is true:

• T has a user-declared move constructor
• T has a user-declared move assignment operator

Otherwise, it is defined as defaulted.

A defaulted copy assignment operator for class T is defined as deleted if any of the following is true:

• T has a non-static data member of non-class type (or array thereof) that is const
• T has a non-static data member of a reference type.
• T has a non-static data member or a direct or virtual base class that cannot be copy-assigned (overload resolution for the copy assignment fails, or selects a deleted or inaccessible function)
• T is a union-like class , and has a variant member whose corresponding assignment operator is non-trivial.

[ edit ] Trivial copy assignment operator

The copy assignment operator for class T is trivial if all of the following is true:

• It is not user-provided (meaning, it is implicitly-defined or defaulted), and if it is defaulted, its signature is the same as implicitly-defined
• T has no virtual member functions
• T has no virtual base classes
• The copy assignment operator selected for every direct base of T is trivial
• The copy assignment operator selected for every non-static class type (or array of class type) member of T is trivial

A trivial copy assignment operator makes a copy of the object representation as if by std::memmove . All data types compatible with the C language (POD types) are trivially copy-assignable.

[ edit ] Implicitly-defined copy assignment operator

If the implicitly-declared copy assignment operator is neither deleted nor trivial, it is defined (that is, a function body is generated and compiled) by the compiler if odr-used . For union types, the implicitly-defined copy assignment copies the object representation (as by std::memmove ). For non-union class types ( class and struct ), the operator performs member-wise copy assignment of the object's bases and non-static members, in their initialization order, using built-in assignment for the scalars and copy assignment operator for class types.

The generation of the implicitly-defined copy assignment operator is deprecated (since C++11) if T has a user-declared destructor or user-declared copy constructor.

[ edit ] Notes

If both copy and move assignment operators are provided, overload resolution selects the move assignment if the argument is an rvalue (either prvalue such as a nameless temporary or xvalue such as the result of std::move ), and selects the copy assignment if the argument is lvalue (named object or a function/operator returning lvalue reference). If only the copy assignment is provided, all argument categories select it (as long as it takes its argument by value or as reference to const, since rvalues can bind to const references), which makes copy assignment the fallback for move assignment, when move is unavailable.

It is unspecified whether virtual base class subobjects that are accessible through more than one path in the inheritance lattice, are assigned more than once by the implicitly-defined copy assignment operator (same applies to move assignment ).

[ edit ] Copy and swap

Copy assignment operator can be expressed in terms of copy constructor, destructor, and the swap() member function, if one is provided:

T & T :: operator = ( T arg ) { // copy/move constructor is called to construct arg     swap ( arg ) ;     // resources exchanged between *this and arg     return * this ; }   // destructor is called to release the resources formerly held by *this

For non-throwing swap(), this form provides strong exception guarantee . For rvalue arguments, this form automatically invokes the move constructor, and is sometimes referred to as "unifying assignment operator" (as in, both copy and move). However, this approach is not always advisable due to potentially significant overhead: see assignment operator overloading for details.

[ edit ] Example

• Recent changes
• Offline version
• What links here
• Related changes
• Upload file
• Special pages
• Printable version
• Permanent link
• Page information
• In other languages
• This page was last modified on 30 November 2015, at 07:24.
• This page has been accessed 110,155 times.
• Privacy policy
• About cppreference.com
• Disclaimers

Copy assignment operator

A copy assignment operator of class T is a non-template non-static member function with the name operator = that takes exactly one parameter of type T , T & , const T & , volatile T & , or const volatile T & . For a type to be CopyAssignable , it must have a public copy assignment operator.

Explanation

• Typical declaration of a copy assignment operator when copy-and-swap idiom can be used.
• Typical declaration of a copy assignment operator when copy-and-swap idiom cannot be used (non-swappable type or degraded performance).
• Forcing a copy assignment operator to be generated by the compiler.
• Avoiding implicit copy assignment.

The copy assignment operator is called whenever selected by overload resolution , e.g. when an object appears on the left side of an assignment expression.

Implicitly-declared copy assignment operator

If no user-defined copy assignment operators are provided for a class type ( struct , class , or union ), the compiler will always declare one as an inline public member of the class. This implicitly-declared copy assignment operator has the form T & T :: operator = ( const T & ) if all of the following is true:

• each direct base B of T has a copy assignment operator whose parameters are B or const B & or const volatile B & ;
• each non-static data member M of T of class type or array of class type has a copy assignment operator whose parameters are M or const M & or const volatile M & .

Otherwise the implicitly-declared copy assignment operator is declared as T & T :: operator = ( T & ) . (Note that due to these rules, the implicitly-declared copy assignment operator cannot bind to a volatile lvalue argument.)

A class can have multiple copy assignment operators, e.g. both T & T :: operator = ( const T & ) and T & T :: operator = ( T ) . If some user-defined copy assignment operators are present, the user may still force the generation of the implicitly declared copy assignment operator with the keyword default . (since C++11)

The implicitly-declared (or defaulted on its first declaration) copy assignment operator has an exception specification as described in dynamic exception specification (until C++17) exception specification (since C++17)

Because the copy assignment operator is always declared for any class, the base class assignment operator is always hidden. If a using-declaration is used to bring in the assignment operator from the base class, and its argument type could be the same as the argument type of the implicit assignment operator of the derived class, the using-declaration is also hidden by the implicit declaration.

Deleted implicitly-declared copy assignment operator

A implicitly-declared copy assignment operator for class T is defined as deleted if any of the following is true:

• T has a user-declared move constructor;
• T has a user-declared move assignment operator.

Otherwise, it is defined as defaulted.

A defaulted copy assignment operator for class T is defined as deleted if any of the following is true:

• T has a non-static data member of non-class type (or array thereof) that is const ;
• T has a non-static data member of a reference type;
• T has a non-static data member or a direct or virtual base class that cannot be copy-assigned (overload resolution for the copy assignment fails, or selects a deleted or inaccessible function);
• T is a union-like class , and has a variant member whose corresponding assignment operator is non-trivial.

Trivial copy assignment operator

The copy assignment operator for class T is trivial if all of the following is true:

• it is not user-provided (meaning, it is implicitly-defined or defaulted) , , and if it is defaulted, its signature is the same as implicitly-defined (until C++14) ;
• T has no virtual member functions;
• T has no virtual base classes;
• the copy assignment operator selected for every direct base of T is trivial;
• the copy assignment operator selected for every non-static class type (or array of class type) member of T is trivial;

A trivial copy assignment operator makes a copy of the object representation as if by std::memmove . All data types compatible with the C language (POD types) are trivially copy-assignable.

Implicitly-defined copy assignment operator

If the implicitly-declared copy assignment operator is neither deleted nor trivial, it is defined (that is, a function body is generated and compiled) by the compiler if odr-used . For union types, the implicitly-defined copy assignment copies the object representation (as by std::memmove ). For non-union class types ( class and struct ), the operator performs member-wise copy assignment of the object's bases and non-static members, in their initialization order, using built-in assignment for the scalars and copy assignment operator for class types.

The generation of the implicitly-defined copy assignment operator is deprecated (since C++11) if T has a user-declared destructor or user-declared copy constructor.

If both copy and move assignment operators are provided, overload resolution selects the move assignment if the argument is an rvalue (either a prvalue such as a nameless temporary or an xvalue such as the result of std::move ), and selects the copy assignment if the argument is an lvalue (named object or a function/operator returning lvalue reference). If only the copy assignment is provided, all argument categories select it (as long as it takes its argument by value or as reference to const, since rvalues can bind to const references), which makes copy assignment the fallback for move assignment, when move is unavailable.

It is unspecified whether virtual base class subobjects that are accessible through more than one path in the inheritance lattice, are assigned more than once by the implicitly-defined copy assignment operator (same applies to move assignment ).

See assignment operator overloading for additional detail on the expected behavior of a user-defined copy-assignment operator.

Defect reports

The following behavior-changing defect reports were applied retroactively to previously published C++ standards.

• C++ Classes and Objects
• C++ Polymorphism
• C++ Inheritance
• C++ Abstraction
• C++ Encapsulation
• C++ OOPs Interview Questions
• C++ OOPs MCQ
• C++ Interview Questions
• C++ Function Overloading
• C++ Programs
• C++ Preprocessor
• C++ Templates

Copy Constructor in C++

A copy constructor is a type of constructor that initializes an object using another object of the same class. In simple terms, a constructor which creates an object by initializing it with an object of the same class, which has been created previously is known as a copy constructor .  

The process of initializing members of an object through a copy constructor is known as copy initialization . It is also called member-wise initialization because the copy constructor initializes one object with the existing object, both belonging to the same class on a member-by-member copy basis.

Syntax of Copy Constructor in C++

Copy constructor takes a reference to an object of the same class as an argument:

Here, the const qualifier is optional but is added so that we do not modify the obj by mistake.

Syntax of Copy Constructor

Examples of Copy Constructor in C++

Example 1: user defined copy constructor.

If the programmer does not define the copy constructor, the compiler does it for us.

Example 2: Default Copy Constructor

An implicitly defined copy constructor will copy the bases and members of an object in the same order that a constructor would initialize the bases and members of the object.

Need of User Defined Copy Constructor

If we don’t define our own copy constructor, the C++ compiler creates a default copy constructor for each class which works fine in general. However, we need to define our own copy constructor only if an object has pointers or any runtime allocation of the resource like a file handle , a network connection, etc because the default constructor does only shallow copy.

Shallow Copy means that only the pointers will be copied not the actual resources that the pointers are pointing to. This can lead to dangling pointers if the original object is deleted.

Deep copy is possible only with a user-defined copy constructor. In a user-defined copy constructor, we make sure that pointers (or references) of copied objects point to new copy of the dynamic resource allocated manually in the copy constructor using new operators.

Example: Class Where a Copy Constructor is Required

Following is a complete C++ program to demonstrate the use of the Copy constructor. In the following String class, we must write a copy constructor. 

Note: Such classes also need the overloaded assignment operator. See this article for more info – C++ Assignment Operator Overloading

What would be the problem if we remove the copy constructor from the above code?

If we remove the copy constructor from the above program, we don’t get the expected output. The c hanges made to str2 reflect in str1 as well which is never expected. Also, if the str1 is destroyed, the str2’s data member s will be pointing to the deallocated memory.

When is the Copy Constructor Called?

In C++, a copy constructor may be called in the following cases: 

• When an object of the class is returned by value.
• When an object of the class is passed (to a function) by value as an argument.
• When an object is constructed based on another object of the same class.
• When the compiler generates a temporary object.

It is, however, not guaranteed that a copy constructor will be called in all these cases, because the C++ Standard allows the compiler to optimize the copy away in certain cases, one example is the return value optimization (sometimes referred to as RVO).

Refer to this article for more details – When is a Copy Constructor Called in C++?

Copy Elision

In copy elision, the compiler prevents the making of extra copies by making the use to techniques such as NRVO and RVO which results in saving space and better the program complexity (both time and space); Hence making the code more optimized.

Copy Constructor vs Assignment Operator

The main difference between Copy Constructor and Assignment Operator is that the Copy constructor makes a new memory storage every time it is called while the assignment operator does not make new memory storage.

Which of the following two statements calls the copy constructor and which one calls the assignment operator? 

A copy constructor is called when a new object is created from an existing object, as a copy of the existing object. The assignment operator is called when an already initialized object is assigned a new value from another existing object. In the above example (1) calls the copy constructor and (2) calls the assignment operator.

Frequently Asked Questions in C++ Copy Constructors

Can we make the copy constructor private  .

Yes, a copy constructor can be made private. When we make a copy constructor private in a class, objects of that class become non-copyable. This is particularly useful when our class has pointers or dynamically allocated resources. In such situations, we can either write our own copy constructor like the above String example or make a private copy constructor so that users get compiler errors rather than surprises at runtime.

Why argument to a copy constructor must be passed as a reference?  

If you pass the object by value in the copy constructor, it will result in a recursive call to the copy constructor itself. This happens because passing by value involves making a copy, and making a copy involves calling the copy constructor, leading to an infinite recursion. Using a reference avoids this recursion. So, we use reference of objects to avoid infinite calls.

Why argument to a copy constructor should be const?

One reason for passing const reference is, that we should use const in C++ wherever possible so that objects are not accidentally modified. This is one good reason for passing reference as const , but there is more to it than ‘ Why argument to a copy constructor should be const?’

Related Articles:

• Constructors in C++

Please Login to comment...

Similar reads.

• cpp-constructor
• How to Get a Free SSL Certificate
• Best SSL Certificates Provider in India
• Elon Musk's xAI releases Grok-2 AI assistant
• What is OpenAI SearchGPT? How it works and How to Get it?
• Full Stack Developer Roadmap [2024 Updated]

Improve your Coding Skills with Practice

What kind of Experience do you want to share?

This browser is no longer supported.

Upgrade to Microsoft Edge to take advantage of the latest features, security updates, and technical support.

C++ At Work

Copy Constructors, Assignment Operators, and More

Paul DiLascia

Code download available at: CAtWork0509.exe (276 KB) Browse the Code Online

Q I have a simple C++ problem. I want my copy constructor and assignment operator to do the same thing. Can you tell me the best way to accomplish this?

A At first glance this seems like a simple question with a simple answer: just write a copy constructor that calls operator=.

Or, alternatively, write a common copy method and call it from both your copy constructor and operator=, like so:

This code works fine for many classes, but there's more here than meets the eye. In particular, what happens if your class contains instances of other classes as members? To find out, I wrote the test program in Figure 1 . It has a main class, CMainClass, which contains an instance of another class, CMember. Both classes have a copy constructor and assignment operator, with the copy constructor for CMainClass calling operator= as in the first snippet. The code is sprinkled with printf statements to show which methods are called when. To exercise the constructors, cctest first creates an instance of CMainClass using the default ctor, then creates another instance using the copy constructor:

Figure 1 Copy Constructors and Assignment Operators

If you compile and run cctest, you'll see the following printf messages when cctest constructs obj2:

The member object m_obj got initialized twice! First by the default constructor, and again via assignment. Hey, what's going on?

In C++, assignment and copy construction are different because the copy constructor initializes uninitialized memory, whereas assignment starts with an existing initialized object. If your class contains instances of other classes as data members, the copy constructor must first construct these data members before it calls operator=. The result is that these members get initialized twice, as cctest shows. Got it? It's the same thing that happens with the default constructor when you initialize members using assignment instead of initializers. For example:

As opposed to:

Using assignment, m_obj is initialized twice; with the initializer syntax, only once. So, what's the solution to avoid extra initializations during copy construction? While it goes against your instinct to reuse code, this is one situation where it's best to implement your copy constructor and assignment operator separately, even if they do the same thing. Calling operator= from your copy constructor will certainly work, but it's not the most efficient implementation. My observation about initializers suggests a better way:

Now the main copy ctor calls the member object's copy ctor using an initializer, and m_obj is initialized just once by its copy ctor. In general, copy ctors should invoke the copy ctors of their members. Likewise for assignment. And, I may as well add, the same goes for base classes: your derived copy ctor and assignment operators should invoke the corresponding base class methods. Of course, there are always times when you may want to do something different because you know how your code works—but what I've described are the general rules, which are to be broken only when you have a compelling reason. If you have common tasks to perform after the basic objects have been initialized, you can put them in a common initialization method and call it from your constructors and operator=.

Q Can you tell me how to call a Visual C++® class from C#, and what syntax I need to use for this?

Sunil Peddi

Q I have an application that is written in both C# (the GUI) and in classic C++ (some business logic). Now I need to call from a DLL written in C++ a function (or a method) in a DLL written in Visual C++ .NET. This one calls another DLL written in C#. The Visual C++ .NET DLL acts like a proxy. Is this possible? I was able to use LoadLibrary to call a function present in the Visual C++ .NET DLL, and I can receive a return value, but when I try to pass some parameters to the function in the Visual C++ .NET DLL, I get the following error:

How can I resolve this problem?

Giuseppe Dattilo

A I get a lot of questions about interoperability between the Microsoft® .NET Framework and native C++, so I don't mind revisiting this well-covered topic yet again. There are two directions you can go: calling the Framework from C++ or calling C++ from the Framework. I won't go into COM interop here as that's a separate issue best saved for another day.

Let's start with the easiest one first: calling the Framework from C++. The simplest and easiest way to call the Framework from your C++ program is to use the Managed Extensions. These Microsoft-specific C++ language extensions are designed to make calling the Framework as easy as including a couple of files and then using the classes as if they were written in C++. Here's a very simple C++ program that calls the Framework's Console class:

To use the Managed Extensions, all you need to do is import <mscorlib.dll> and whatever .NET assemblies contain the classes you plan to use. Don't forget to compile with /clr:

Your C++ code can use managed classes more or less as if they were ordinary C++ classes. For example, you can create Framework objects with operator new, and access them using C++ pointer syntax, as shown in the following:

Here, the String s is declared as pointer-to-String because String::Format returns a new String object.

The "Hello, world" and date/time programs seem childishly simple—and they are—but just remember that however complex your program is, however many .NET assemblies and classes you use, the basic idea is the same: use <mscorlib.dll> and whatever other assemblies you need, then create managed objects with new, and use pointer syntax to access them.

So much for calling the Framework from C++. What about going the other way, calling C++ from the Framework? Here the road forks into two options, depending on whether you want to call extern C functions or C++ class member functions. Again, I'll take the simpler case first: calling C functions from .NET. The easiest thing to do here is use P/Invoke. With P/Invoke, you declare the external functions as static methods of a class, using the DllImport attribute to specify that the function lives in an external DLL. In C# it looks like this:

This tells the compiler that MessageBox is a function in user32.dll that takes an IntPtr (HWND), two Strings, and an int. You can then call it from your C# program like so:

Of course, you don't need P/Invoke for MessageBox since the .NET Framework already has a MessageBox class, but there are plenty of API functions that aren't supported directly by the Framework, and then you need P/Invoke. And, of course, you can use P/Invoke to call C functions in your own DLLs. I've used C# in the example, but P/Invoke works with any .NET-based language like Visual Basic® .NET or JScript®.NET. The names are the same, only the syntax is different.

Note that I used IntPtr to declare the HWND. I could have got away with int, but you should always use IntPtr for any kind of handle such as HWND, HANDLE, or HDC. IntPtr will default to 32 or 64 bits depending on the platform, so you never have to worry about the size of the handle.

DllImport has various modifiers you can use to specify details about the imported function. In this example, CharSet=CharSet.Auto tells the Framework to pass Strings as Unicode or Ansi, depending on the target operating system. Another little-known modifier you can use is CallingConvention. Recall that in C, there are different calling conventions, which are the rules that specify how the compiler should pass arguments and return values from one function to another across the stack. The default CallingConvention for DllImport is CallingConvention.Winapi. This is actually a pseudo-convention that uses the default convention for the target platform; for example, StdCall (in which the callee cleans the stack) on Windows® platforms and CDecl (in which the caller cleans the stack) on Windows CE .NET. CDecl is also used with varargs functions like printf.

The calling convention is where Giuseppe ran into trouble. C++ uses yet a third calling convention: thiscall. With this convention, the compiler uses the hardware register ECX to pass the "this" pointer to class member functions that don't have variable arguments. Without knowing the exact details of Giuseppe's program, it sounds from the error message that he's trying to call a C++ member function that expects thiscall from a C# program that's using StdCall—oops!

Aside from calling conventions, another interoperability issue when calling C++ methods from the Framework is linkage: C and C++ use different forms of linkage because C++ requires name-mangling to support function overloading. That's why you have to use extern "C" when you declare C functions in C++ programs: so the compiler won't mangle the name. In Windows, the entire windows.h file (now winuser.h) is enclosed in extern "C" brackets.

While there may be a way to call C++ member functions in a DLL directly using P/Invoke and DllImport with the exact mangled names and CallingConvention=ThisCall, it's not something to attempt if you're in your right mind. The proper way to call C++ classes from managed code—option number two—is to wrap your C++ classes in managed wrappers. Wrapping can be tedious if you have lots of classes, but it's really the only way to go. Say you have a C++ class CWidget and you want to wrap it so .NET clients can use it. The basic formula looks something like this:

The pattern is the same for any class. You write a managed (__gc) class that holds a pointer to the native class, you write a constructor and destructor that allocate and destroy the instance, and you write wrapper methods that call the corresponding native C++ member functions. You don't have to wrap all the member functions, only the ones you want to expose to the managed world.

Figure 2 shows a simple but concrete example in full detail. CPerson is a class that holds the name of a person, with member functions GetName and SetName to change the name. Figure 3 shows the managed wrapper for CPerson. In the example, I converted Get/SetName to a property, so .NET-based programmers can use the property syntax. In C#, using it looks like this:

Figure 3 Managed Person Class

Figure 2 Native CPerson Class

Using properties is purely a matter of style; I could equally well have exposed two methods, GetName and SetName, as in the native class. But properties feel more like .NET. The wrapper class is an assembly like any other, but one that links with the native DLL. This is one of the cool benefits of the Managed Extensions: You can link directly with native C/C++ code. If you download and compile the source for my CPerson example, you'll see that the makefile generates two separate DLLs: person.dll implements a normal native DLL and mperson.dll is the managed assembly that wraps it. There are also two test programs: testcpp.exe, a native C++ program that calls the native person.dll and testcs.exe, which is written in C# and calls the managed wrapper mperson.dll (which in turn calls the native person.dll).

Figure 4** Interop Highway **

I've used a very simple example to highlight the fact that there are fundamentally only a few main highways across the border between the managed and native worlds (see Figure 4 ). If your C++ classes are at all complex, the biggest interop problem you'll encounter is converting parameters between native and managed types, a process called marshaling. The Managed Extensions do an admirable job of making this as painless as possible (for example, automatically converting primitive types and Strings), but there are times where you have to know something about what you're doing.

For example, you can't pass the address of a managed object or subobject to a native function without pinning it first. That's because managed objects live in the managed heap, which the garbage collector is free to rearrange. If the garbage collector moves an object, it can update all the managed references to that object—but it knows nothing of raw native pointers that live outside the managed world. That's what __pin is for; it tells the garbage collector: don't move this object. For strings, the Framework has a special function PtrToStringChars that returns a pinned pointer to the native characters. (Incidentally, for those curious-minded souls, PtrToStringChars is the only function as of this date defined in <vcclr.h>. Figure 5 shows the code.) I used PtrToStringChars in MPerson to set the Name (see Figure 3 ).

Figure 5 PtrToStringChars

Pinning isn't the only interop problem you'll encounter. Other problems arise if you have to deal with arrays, references, structs, and callbacks, or access a subobject within an object. This is where some of the more advanced techniques come in, such as StructLayout, boxing, __value types, and so on. You also need special code to handle exceptions (native or managed) and callbacks/delegates. But don't let these interop details obscure the big picture. First decide which way you're calling (from managed to native or the other way around), and if you're calling from managed to native, whether to use P/Invoke or a wrapper.

In Visual Studio® 2005 (which some of you may already have as beta bits), the Managed Extensions have been renamed and upgraded to something called C++/CLI. Think of the C++/CLI as Managed Extensions Version 2, or What the Managed Extensions Should Have Been. The changes are mostly a matter of syntax, though there are some important semantic changes, too. In general C++/CLI is designed to highlight rather than blur the distinction between managed and native objects. Using pointer syntax for managed objects was a clever and elegant idea, but in the end perhaps a little too clever because it obscures important differences between managed and native objects. C++/CLI introduces the key notion of handles for managed objects, so instead of using C pointer syntax for managed objects, the CLI uses ^ (hat):

As you no doubt noticed, there's also a gcnew operator to clarify when you're allocating objects on the managed heap as opposed to the native one. This has the added benefit that gcnew doesn't collide with C++ new, which can be overloaded or even redefined as a macro. C++/CLI has many other cool features designed to make interoperability as straightforward and intuitive as possible.

Send your questions and comments for Paul to   [email protected] .

Paul DiLascia is a freelance software consultant and Web/UI designer-at-large. He is the author of Windows ++: Writing Reusable Windows Code in C ++ (Addison-Wesley, 1992). In his spare time, Paul develops PixieLib, an MFC class library available from his Web site, www.dilascia.com .

Additional resources

14.14 — Introduction to the copy constructor

The copy constructor

This is illustrated in the following example:

• Stack Overflow for Teams Where developers & technologists share private knowledge with coworkers
• Advertising & Talent Reach devs & technologists worldwide about your product, service or employer brand
• OverflowAI GenAI features for Teams
• OverflowAPI Train & fine-tune LLMs
• Labs The future of collective knowledge sharing
• About the company Visit the blog

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

Find centralized, trusted content and collaborate around the technologies you use most.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

Get early access and see previews of new features.

C++ : Implementing copy constructor and copy assignment operator

After reading about copy constructors and copy assignment operators in C++, I tried to create a simple example. Though the below snippet apparently works, I am not sure whether I am implementing the copy constructor and copy assignment operator the right way. Could you please point out if there are any mistakes/improvements or a better example to understand the relevant concepts.

• copy-constructor

3 Answers 3

Your copy assignment operator is implemented incorrectly. The object being assigned to leaks the object its base points to.

Your default constructor is also incorrect: it leaves both base and var uninitialized, so there is no way to know whether either is valid and in the destructor, when you call delete base; , Bad Things Happen.

The easiest way to implement the copy constructor and copy assignment operator and to know that you have done so correctly is to use the Copy-and-Swap idiom .

• 1 +1 good point the copy and swap idiom is essential to have an exception safe implementation that guarantees the object to remain in a consistent state. –  jdehaan Commented Jan 15, 2011 at 17:28
• Won't the memory be freed by destructor ~Foobar() ? –  blitzkriegz Commented Jan 15, 2011 at 17:28
• @Mahatma: ~Foobar() won't be called; the object is never destroyed, it is assigned to. –  James McNellis Commented Jan 15, 2011 at 17:30
• 1 @Mahatma the destructor would be called if you'd have a garbage collector, in which case the destructor would be called in some not-necessarily-deterministic moment, or if the pointer would be a smart pointer. But you don't have a garbage collector and the pointer most certainly is not smart. So you must clean up manually. Or use a smart pointer, of course, which is an excellent idea. –  wilhelmtell Commented Jan 15, 2011 at 17:43
• Ok, since I do a base = new Foobase(other.GetBaseValue()); , the original memory area base was pointing to leaks. But if I do a delete base; before the new allocation to free the original memory, I get a double free or corruption error. –  blitzkriegz Commented Jan 15, 2011 at 17:50

Only Foobar needs a custom copy constructor, assignment operator and destructor. Foobase doesn't need one because the default behaviour the compiler gives is good enough.

In the case of Foobar you have a leak in the assignment operator. You can easily fix it by freeing the object before allocating it, and that should be good enough. But if you ever add a second pointer member to Foobar you will see that that's when things get complicated. Now, if you have an exception while allocating the second pointer you need to clean up properly the first pointer you allocated, to avoid corruption or leaks. And things get more complicated than that in a polynomial manner as you add more pointer members.

Instead, what you want to do is implement the assignment operator in terms of the copy constructor. Then, you should implement the copy-constructor in terms of a non-throwing swap function. Read about the Copy & Swap idiom for details.

Also, the default constructor of Foobar doesn't default-initialize the members. That's bad, because it's not what the user would expect. The member pointer points at an arbitrary address and the int has an arbitrary value. Now if you use the object the constructor created you are very near Undefined Behaviour Land.

• If I do a delete base; before the new allocation to free the original memory, I get a double free or corruption error. I'll look into the idiom. I didn't get the last part about problem with empty default constructor. Should I have put var = SOMEVALUE; and base = NULL; there since in my example, I use the parameterized constructor. –  blitzkriegz Commented Jan 15, 2011 at 18:02
• The absence of parentheses in the new-expression only makes a difference for types without constructors, which none of the types here are. default-initialization of types with at least one user-defined constructor does generate a call to the default constructor. –  Ben Voigt Commented Jan 15, 2011 at 18:52
• Pedantically, the default constructor DOES default-initialize the members (by not having a ctor-initializer , they are not mentioned in any mem-initializer-id , and the standard specifies that they are default-initialized in this case). But default initialization of an int leaves the state unspecified. –  Ben Voigt Commented Jan 15, 2011 at 18:56

I have a very simple patch for you:

That should get you started.

The bottom line is:

• Don't call delete in your code (Experts see point 2)
• Don't call delete in your code (you know better...)

• Depending on the age of the C++ library provided with the compiler, it could be std::tr1::unique_ptr ... –  Ben Voigt Commented Jan 15, 2011 at 18:49

Your Answer

Reminder: Answers generated by artificial intelligence tools are not allowed on Stack Overflow. Learn more

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest.

Required, but never shown

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy .

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged c++ copy-constructor or ask your own question .

• The Overflow Blog
• Ryan Dahl explains why Deno had to evolve with version 2.0
• From PHP to JavaScript to Kubernetes: how one backend engineer evolved over time
• Featured on Meta
• We've made changes to our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy - July 2024
• Bringing clarity to status tag usage on meta sites
• Feedback requested: How do you use tag hover descriptions for curating and do...
• What does a new user need in a homepage experience on Stack Overflow?

Hot Network Questions

• Jacobi two square's theorem last step to conclusion
• Can objective morality be derived as a corollary from the assumption of God's existence?
• How to raise a vector to powers contained in a vector, change the list into a product, and do this for all the lines of a matrix, efficiently?
• A binary sequence such that sum of every 10 consecutive terms is divisible by 3 is necessarily periodic?
• Is my electrical rough-in code compliant?
• The hat-check problem
• Book about a colony ship making an unscheduled stop in a star system with no habitable planets
• How to ensure a BSD licensed open source project is not closed in the future?
• what's the purpose of dependent claims?
• Explaining Arithmetic Progression
• Can I use rear (thru) axle with crack for a few rides, before getting a new one?
• Chord definition misunderstanding
• Everyone hates this Key Account Manager, but company won’t act
• Meaning of capacitor "× 2" symbol on data sheet schematic
• If physics can be reduced to mathematics (and thus to logic), does this mean that (physical) causation is ultimately reducible to implication?
• How can I address my colleague communicating with us via chatGPT?
• What is the lesson of the Book of Iyov for the "average" person
• Millennial reign and New Heaven and New Earth
• Are there any original heat shield tiles on any of the retired space shuttles that flew to space?
• How to determine if a set is countable or uncountable?
• If you get pulled for secondary inspection at immigration, missing flight, will the airline rebook you?
• One IO to control two LEDs. When one is lit, the other is not
• Matrix with \guilsinglright, \guilsinglleft and \textlquill, \textrquill
• Is there anything that stops the majority shareholder(s) from destroying company value?