I have my project set to treat compiler warnings as errors and this seemingly trivial lambda capture is proving to be a head scratcher of an issue for me:
#pragma warning(default : 4626)
struct B{
B& operator=(const B&) = delete;
void f(){
auto l = [this](){ // <== compiler warning
/*body*/
};
}
};
int main(){
return 0;
}
The code above produces the following warning in MSVC 2019 (16.2.5):
warning C4626: 'B::f::<lambda_1>': assignment operator was implicitly defined as deleted
The warning is emitted for the lambda that captures this (and if I don't capture the this it compiles with no warnings).
Could someone explain to me the reason for the warning and if there's a way to write the code such that it compiles cleanly?
I understand that lambdas' assignment operators are implicitly deleted but not sure how (if) is that relevant to the warning I'm getting.
iam in a similar situation and reproduced the warning like this:
#pragma warning(default : 4626)
struct A
{
A& operator=(const A&) = delete;
};
struct B : public A
{
//B& operator=(const B&) = delete;
void f(){
auto l = [](){ // <== compiler warning
/*body*/
};
}
};
int main(){
return 0;
}
Compiled with /std:c++latest /W4
in my case it makes no difference if you capture this or not.
Is you class Inheriting from another class with a deleted operator= ?
I avoid that warning by explicitly deleting the operator= in my case.
This warning occured in MVS 19 16.3.0 compiling with /latest. with /std:c++17 there is no such warning.
EDIT
this warning also happens as soon something captured in the lamdba is used (captured by copy or ref doesnt matter):
#pragma warning(default : 4626)
int main()
{
int foo;
auto bar = [&]() {
foo;
};
return 0;
}
<source>(8): warning C4626: 'main::<lambda_1>': assignment operator was implicitly defined as deleted
(with /std:c++latest /W4)
Related
I coded an Arduino project for my son and learned about C in the process. All works fine but after dividing up the code into ten files and grouping the variables into structs in each file I'm not able to solve one wish for clarity. We need to empirically determine the best size of an array for storing and averaging port reads so this is what I want:
struct Alarms {
// Configurable parameters
const unsigned int number_of_reads = 24;
// State variables
int reads[number_of_reads]; // Error: invalid use of non-static data member 'Alarms::num_of_reads'
};
It’s simple but doesn't work. I tried flexible array members until I found that that feature is not supported in C++. Arduino compiles with C++. I tried many examples of the 'struct hack' but they all returned errors like this one:
struct Alarms {
// Configurable parameters
int number_of_reads = 24;
// State variables
int reads[];
} ar;
void setup_alarm() {
ar.reads = malloc(sizeof(int) * ar.number_of_reads); // Error: incompatible types in assignment of 'void*' to 'int [0]'
}
That looked promising but I suspect my ignorance is glowing brightly. Most struct hack examples call for declaring the struct and later initializing the struct variables. I’m hoping to not duplicate the struct.
I considered splitting the struct but that would be error prone and, well, another compile error:
struct Alarms2 {
int reads[ar.num_of_reads]; // Error: array bound is not an integer constant before ']' token
} ar2;
An alternative is to size the array and get the size later but it needs an explanation:
struct Alarms {
// Configurable parameters
int reads[ 24 ]; // Put number of reads to average between brackets
// State variables
int number_of_reads;
};
void setup_alarm() {
ar.number_of_reads = sizeof(ar.reads) / sizeof(ar.reads[0]); // this works
}
Is there a way to work the struct hack or some similar solution in Arduino to like achieve the first example?
The size of the struct must be known at compilation time. Const data types in structs can change per instance of the structure, that is why you are getting the invalid use of non-static data member 'Alarms::num_of_reads' when you try to initialize your array. The best way to solve this is to have an init_alarm and destroy_alarm functions. Like so ...
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#define DEFAULT_NUM_OF_READS (24)
struct alarm {
// Configurable parameters
const int number_of_reads;
// State variables
int *reads;
};
void init_alarm(struct alarm *alarm)
{
alarm->reads = (int *) malloc(alarm->number_of_reads * sizeof(int));
}
void destroy_alarm(struct alarm *alarm)
{
free(alarm->reads);
}
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
// When we create our struct, set number_of_reads to default
struct alarm alarm = {.number_of_reads = DEFAULT_NUM_OF_READS, .reads = NULL};
init_alarm(&alarm);
alarm.reads[0] = 13;
alarm.reads[23] = 100;
printf("alarm.reads[0] = %d, alarm.reads[23] = %d\n", alarm.reads[0], alarm.reads[23]);
destroy_alarm(&alarm);
return 0;
}
Note: Inorder to use the designated initializer to initialize a structure you must compile with ANSI (C99) like so ...
gcc --std=c99 test.c -o test
i am new in this and i am working on App of media player and recording app. in which i have shown song list of device in the listview and recording start / stop / play. Now i want to convert that .mp3 recorded file into .mp4 and one image will show on behalf of a video in that file. Help me to achive this i have no idea and i refer many links and i didnt find anything.
Please check this link for your first question:
Why can't we initialize class members at their declaration?
Usually constructor is use to initialize value to data variables of class.
For 2nd Question:
If data member is not initialize after creation of object, It will contain garbage value. So initialize or assign suitable value to as per your need.
Check below code:
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
class swap_values
{
int a, b, temp;
public:
swap_values(){
a=0;b=0;temp=0;
}
swap_values(int x, int y){
a = x;
b = y;
temp = 0;
}
void swapped()
{
temp = b;
b=a;
a=temp;
}
void print(){
cout<<"a: "<<a<<" b: "<<b<<endl;
}
};
int main()
{
int x =10; int y = 20;
swap_values obj(x, y);
obj.print();
obj.swapped();
obj.print();
return 0;
}
Everything can be done in better ways but just using your code this will work for you -
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class Swap {
private:
int a,b,temp;
public:
Swap()
{
a=10;
b=20;
temp=0;
}
void swapNums()
{
temp=a; a=b; b=temp;
cout<<a<<" " <<b<<endl;
}
};
int main() {
Swap s;
s.swapNums();
return 0;
}
You can avoid using class name as some function name. You can instead use constructor without a return type where you can initialise the member variables. swap method looks fine.
i am not able to initialize my variable in class.
class swap
{
int a=10; \\cannot declare here
int b=20; \\ cannot declare here
}
Since C++11, this is fine, you can have default member initialization.
The error is due to missing semicolon after }.
why it has garbage value with b ??
a=b;
b=temp;
temp=a;
Since temp was never initialized before assigning it to b, temp has an indeterminate value.
Any usage will lead to undefined behavior.
Here's a simple Swap struct:
struct Swap
{
int a = 10; // default member initialization
int b = 20; // default member initialization
Swap(int a = 20, int b = 10): a(b), b(a) {}; // swap on initialization
// using member initializer list
};
Swap s;
std::cout << s.a // 20
<< s.b // 10
<< std::endl;
In this example, default member initialization is "obsolete" / "redundant" due to member initializer list.
I would have posted this in the spinroot Bug Reports, but the spinroot forum is not currently accepting new users... If someone out there in charge of that is reading this, please let me in :)
Something very odd is happening when I try to use the select statement. Promela does not allow select() to be called on the field of a struct, so I have to make a temporary variable like this:
typedef someStruct {
int someField;
}
someStruct struct;
inline SetSelect() {
int temp;
select(temp: -1 .. 1);
struct.someField = temp;
}
init{
SetSelect();
}
This runs fine. I tested it and struct.someField is correctly set to either -1, 0, or 1. However, when I try to just put the inlined code straight into the init() process, I get a syntax error. The code looks like this:
typedef someStruct {
int someField;
}
someStruct struct;
init{
int temp;
select(temp: -1 .. 1);
struct.someField = temp;
}
And the error message is:
spin: select_test.pml:9, Error: syntax error saw ''-' = 45'
BUG:
Indeed, it looks like a bug for version 6.4.6 of Spin.
(The bug is fixed in version 6.4.7)
Interestingly, You can make it go away by simply writing temp : instead of temp:.
I suggest you to contact Gerard Holzmann for filing a bug report. I would also mention the fact that select does not seem to work with a struct field, perhaps that can be fixed too (even if it might be by design).
SUGGESTION:
I am not entirely happy of creating an alias variable to get around the issue of the built-in select function with struct fields. Since the implementation of select is rather trivial, as can be found in the docs, I would introduce a novel inline function to replace the built-in select function:
typedef Struct
{
int field;
}
inline my_select (var, lower, upper)
{
var = lower;
do
:: var < upper -> var++;
:: break;
od;
}
init
{
Struct st;
my_select(st.field, -1, 1);
printf("%d\n", st.field);
}
I am attempting to create template classes where each can solve a specific facet of the problem so to be able to mishmash them without resorting to creating the traditional abstract virtual classes.
For that, I believe CRTP would be the best paradigm.
However, when using CRTP a bit more I found trapped on this weak resolution logic - compiler (g++ 4.8.2) cannot distinguish between two methods on different classes even though their signature is different - only the method name is the same.
The classes implementation:
template< class T >
class A {
public:
void foo( uint32_t val ) {
T* me = static_cast<T*>( this );
me->doit();
}
};
template< class T >
class B {
public:
void foo() {
uint32_t v32 = 10;
T* me = static_cast<T*>( this );
me->foo( v32 );
}
};
class Derived : public A<Derived>,
public B<Derived>
{
public:
void doit() {
std::cout << "here" << std::endl;
}
};
Then it is used as
Derived d;
d.foo();
When compiled, this error surfaces:
$ g++ -std=c++11 -c testLambda.cpp
testLambda.cpp: In function ‘int main(int, char**)’:
testLambda.cpp:102:7: error: request for member ‘foo’ is ambiguous
d.foo();
^
testLambda.cpp:25:10: note: candidates are: void B<T>::foo() [with T = Derived]
void foo() {
^
testLambda.cpp:16:10: note: void A<T>::foo(uint32_t) [with T = Derived; uint32_t = unsigned int]
void foo( uint32_t val ) {
Is this a compiler bug or the actual expected result?
User pubby8 at reddit.com/r/cpp responded (quote) a quick fix is to add this to Derived's class body:
using A<Derived>::foo;
using B<Derived>::foo;
In this code snippet, the Init() function acts as a on-demand initializer that fills in all member variables of the structure. This is done to avoid calling default constructors all members of a large array on the stack:
struct Foo {
int m_Member;
void Init(int i);
};
void Foo::Init(int i) {
m_Member = i;
// Many other members initialized here.
}
void SomeFunction(int n) {
Foo buffer[64];
assert(n <= 64);
// Explicitly initialize what is needed.
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
buffer[i].Init(i * 3);
}
// Use buffer[0] - buffer[n-1] somehow.
}
This triggers a static analysis error in VS2012 with /analyze:
warning C6001: Using uninitialized memory 'buffer'.: Lines: 17, 19, 20
I'm looking for a way to annotate Foo::Init() so that this warning doesn't occur. There are plenty of other ways to make the warning go away, including:
Adding an empty constructor
Moving Init() to the constructor and calling placement new in the loop
But I'd like to avoid changing the structure of the code.
I've tried the following annotation without success:
void _At_(this, _Out_) Init();
This syntax is accepted, but only changes the warning to be:
warning C6001: Using uninitialized memory 'buffer'.: Lines: 18, 20, 21
warning C6001: Using uninitialized memory 'buffer[BYTE:0]'.: Lines: 18, 20, 21
Does anyone know how I can declare the intent of this Init() function to the static analysis engine?
Your question is somewhat elusive. You have shown SomeFunction taking int, but want annotation for method Init or constructor.
The warning shown is absolutely correct, assert won't hide the warning. You need to put if to check if n is greateer than 64 and reset n (or do something else, but not to loop when n>=64).
For annotation you need to use __in_bcount or similar alternative. An example:
bool SetBuffer(__in_bcount(8) const char* sBuffer);
Whichs says sBuffer is of 8 bytes (not elements).
You can read this this article for more information.
Too ugly to add an extra helper?
struct Foo {
int m_Member;
void Init(int i);
};
void Foo::Init(int i) {
m_Member = i;
// Many other members initialized here.
}
void Initialize(__in_bcount(sizeof(Foo) * n) Foo* buffer, int n) {
// Explicitly initialize what is needed.
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
buffer[i].Init(i * 3);
}
}
void SomeFunction(int n) {
Foo buffer[64];
assert(n <= 64);
Initialize(buffer, n);
// Use buffer[0] - buffer[n-1] somehow.
}
I found a work around by implementing a function to index the array. I flagged the return value as invalid so that this new function only escapes the uninitialized value check in the specific case where the return value is only used to initialize. I've only tested this in VS2017.
#define _Ret_invalid_ _SAL2_Source_(_Ret_invalid_, (), _Ret1_impl_(__notvalid_impl))
template <typename T>
_Ret_invalid_ T& UninitialzedIndex(T* pt, int index)
{
return pt[index];
}
Then, where the value is indexed, I call UninitialzedIndex instead of operator[]
void SomeFunction(int n) {
Foo buffer[64];
if (n <= 64)
return;
// Explicitly initialize what is needed.
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
UninitialzedIndex(buffer, i).Init(i * 3);
}
// Use buffer[0] - buffer[n-1] somehow.
}
Just add a default constructor (that calls Init()). What is wrong with that?
[Edit] The root problem is not how to lie to the static analyzer or your compiler. It is how to enforce that you don't leave foo in an uninitialized state. There is nothing wrong with adding a default constructor. I'd say the desire to NOT do it imposes risk.
Perhaps some client will use that poorly constructed foo class (Long after you wrote it and long after you are gone) and perhaps they will forget to call .Init() ?? What then? They will be left with data that is uninitialized.
If you are looking to enforce that rule, no amount of static analysis will help you there.
Take care of the foundation before you put on the roof.