Home > Gcc Error > Gcc Error Constructor Is Private

Gcc Error Constructor Is Private

however, foo::foo(bar x) should be the only constructor that needs to be called in both cases. I'm afraid this is a different issue. Unsubstantiated In Harry Potter book 7, why didn't the Order flee Britain after Harry turned seventeen? Then function f() declares a local List object called x: void f() { List x; // Local object named x (of class List) // ... } But function g() declares a

However using len_ within a constructor body ({...}) is okay. All rights reserved. But this FAQ pushes it one step further: does y (in rbv()) show up as a distinct, runtime object from x (in caller())? For example, if the expression whatever is the same type as member variable x_, the result of the whatever expression is constructed directly inside x_ -- the compiler does not make http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7420296/private-constructor-error-c

I've looked at that comment but I discarded it as counter-intuitive. I hear they're hiring down at McDonalds. The fundamental problem solved by the Named Parameter Idiom is that C++ only supports positional parameters. Description ericp 2001-06-28 22:16:01 UTC gnu c++ compiler returns errors on the f.test and f.test2 calls claiming that the copy constructor needs to be called but is private.

For example, without the explicit keyword the following code is valid: class Foo { public: Foo(int x); operator int(); }; class Bar { public: Bar(double x); operator double(); }; void yourCode() Before we go through the implementation, here's what the caller code might look like, assuming you are willing to accept all the function's default parameters: File f = OpenFile("foo.txt"); That's the Is the NHS wrong about passwords? This is a question that comes in many forms.

How many temporaries? What about returning a local variable by value? Shouldn't this expression successfully compile and result in 0? http://stackoverflow.com/questions/15029586/private-and-default-constructor-in-c11-and-gcc Constructors are like "init functions".

Radius of Convergence of Infinite Series Is there any job that can't be automated? Suppose further that the initialization for the y object (typically the y object's constructor) calls some method on the x object. The point is simple: if there are any other static objects whose destructors might use ans after ans is destructed, bang, you're dead. No order dependency is introduced since the entire initialization list is guaranteed to finish before the constructor body begins executing.

Comment 7 Andrew Pinski 2004-08-27 09:00:12 UTC bug 12226. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 12226 *** Format For Printing -XML -Clone This Bug -Top of page Did you notice that the error is about access in main? Should my constructors use "initialization lists" or "assignment"? However if a and/or b and/or c fail to use ans in their constructors and/or if any code anywhere gets the address of ans and hands it to some other static

Some people think they can say new(this) Foo(x, int(x)+7) within the body of Foo::Foo(char). You should set Copy Ctor as public or avoid the 2 previous cases. Are leet passwords easily crackable? There are many solutions to this problem, but a very simple and completely portable solution is the Construct On First Use Idiom: replace the namespace-scope / global Fred object x with

This may or may not be what you intended, but this is what happens. Every subsequent call will return the same Fred object (the one pointed to by ans). Said another way, does return-by-value necessarily degrade performance? The point is simply this: use common sense.

Why am I getting an error after declaring a Foo object via Foo x(Bar())? Foo_ctor((Foo*)put_result_here, 42, 73); // Original C++ code: return Foo(42,73); return; } So caller() passes &x to rbv(), and rbv() in turn passes &x to the constructor (as the this pointer). You have been warned.

Initialization lists.

How did my int turn into a complex number? Warning: it's tedious to make it exception-safe: you'll need to manually destruct the elements, including in the case when an exception is thrown part-way through the loop that calls the constructors. The point is that the return-by-value optimization is almost universally implemented, at least in code cases like those shown above. The basic idea of the Construct On First Use Idiom is to wrap your static object inside a function.

But there's a grain of truth in it. For example, 3*4 is a compile-time constant expression, as is a*b provided a and b are compile-time constants. How to use the binomial theorem to calculate binomials with a negative exponent In Harry Potter book 7, why didn't the Order flee Britain after Harry turned seventeen? Suppose function caller() calls rbv() ("rbv" stands for "return by value") which returns a Foo object by value: class Foo { /*...*/ }; Foo rbv(); void caller() { Foo x =

Suppose that List is the name of some class. share|improve this answer answered Oct 13 '09 at 15:48 CAdaker 6,58021928 Can you try to recompile in these versions using -Wall? All rights reserved.

Show sidebar » Sign In / Suggest an Article Register Get Started! If you think it's "exciting" to play Russian Roulette with live rounds in half the chambers, you can stop reading here.

Bug53734 - std::is_constructible fails to compile if copy constructor is private Summary: std::is_constructible fails to compile if copy constructor is private Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 51213 Alias: None Product: gcc Note: in some cases, you can add = initializer; to the declaration of class-scope static declarations, however if you ever use the data member, you still need to explicitly define it