Question 37844 in Ubuntu Question posted in
The official Ubuntu documentation can be found here.

Why unique_ptr requires complete type in constructor? – Ubuntu

From Is std::unique_ptr required to know the full definition of T?, I know that if a class A has a member unique_ptr<T>, then T shall be a complete type in destructor ~A(). However, I came across a situation that the constructor A() also requires complete type of T, see code below:

// a.h -------------------------------
#pragma once
#include <memory>
struct B;
struct A {
  A(); // <---
  ~A();
  std::unique_ptr<B> ptr;
};

// a.cpp -------------------------------
#include "a.h"
struct B {};
A::A() = default; // <---
A::~A() = default;

// main.cpp -------------------------------
#include "a.h"
int main() {A a;}

If the definition of constructor A::A() is moved to the header a.h, the compiler will complain error: invalid application of ‘sizeof’ to incomplete type ‘B’. Why is this happening? Is there any reference material about this?

BTW, I’m using gcc-7.5.0 on Ubuntu 18.04, with c++17 enabled.

Edit for @463035818_is_not_a_number in the comments. The complete error message is:

[1/2] Building CXX object CMakeFiles/t.dir/main.cpp.o
FAILED: CMakeFiles/t.dir/main.cpp.o 
/usr/bin/c++   -g -fdiagnostics-color=always -std=gnu++1z -MD -MT CMakeFiles/t.dir/main.cpp.o -MF CMakeFiles/t.dir/main.cpp.o.d -o CMakeFiles/t.dir/main.cpp.o -c /home/user/Tests/UniquePtrTest/main.cpp
In file included from /usr/include/c++/7/memory:80:0,
                 from /home/user/Tests/UniquePtrTest/a.h:2,
                 from /home/user/Tests/UniquePtrTest/main.cpp:1:
/usr/include/c++/7/bits/unique_ptr.h: In instantiation of ‘void std::default_delete<_Tp>::operator()(_Tp*) const [with _Tp = B]’:
/usr/include/c++/7/bits/unique_ptr.h:263:17:   required from ‘std::unique_ptr<_Tp, _Dp>::~unique_ptr() [with _Tp = B; _Dp = std::default_delete<B>]’
/home/user/Tests/UniquePtrTest/a.h:5:3:   required from here
/usr/include/c++/7/bits/unique_ptr.h:76:22: error: invalid application of ‘sizeof’ to incomplete type ‘B’
  static_assert(sizeof(_Tp)>0,
                      ^
ninja: build stopped: subcommand failed.
Tags:

2

Answers


  1. 0

    The issue is that A::A() needs to know how to destroy ptr in case the constructor throws.

    An example:

    #include <memory>
struct B {};

struct X{
    X(){throw 42;}
};

struct A {
  A() {}
  ~A() {};
  std::unique_ptr<B> ptr;
  X x;
};


int main() {
    A a;
}

    generates:

    A::A() [base object constructor]:
        push    rbp
        mov     rbp, rsp
        push    rbx
        sub     rsp, 24
        mov     QWORD PTR [rbp-24], rdi
        mov     rax, QWORD PTR [rbp-24]
        mov     rdi, rax
        call    std::unique_ptr<B, std::default_delete<B> >::unique_ptr<std::default_delete<B>, void>()
        mov     rax, QWORD PTR [rbp-24]
        add     rax, 8
        mov     rdi, rax
        call    X::X() [complete object constructor]
        jmp     .L6
        mov     rbx, rax
        mov     rax, QWORD PTR [rbp-24]
        mov     rdi, rax
        call    std::unique_ptr<B, std::default_delete<B> >::~unique_ptr() [complete object destructor]
        mov     rax, rbx
        mov     rdi, rax
        call    _Unwind_Resume

    showing the call to std::unique_ptr<B, std::default_delete<B> >::~unique_ptr().

    Is there any reference material about this?

    Technically, yes, you can read the Standard which defines which functions/expressions require a complete type.

    Practically, not so much, since you have to read the Standard which defines which functions/expressions require a complete type.

    Of course cppreference is of high quality and actually readable, although I did not find this use case there.

    In particular, this issue is mentioned in a note
    20.11.1.3.3 Destructor [unique.ptr.single.dtor]

    [Note 1 : The use of default_delete requires T to be a complete type. — end note]

    Login or Signup to reply.
  2. 0

    The error you see is std::default_deleter guarding against undefined behaviour for you.

    When you instantiate the definition of the constructor std::unique_ptr<B>::unique_ptr, the definition of std::default_delete<B>::operator() is also instantiated. Within which is an assertion

    static_assert(sizeof(B) > 0);

    which checks for incomplete types. This prevents any possible deletion of an incomplete type, which is undefined behaviour. See also incomplete types with shared_ptr and unique_ptr.

    But why does moving the definition of A::A() to the header cause an error but not if it’s in the implementation file?

    As it turns out, simply declaring the member std::unique_ptr<B> only instantiates the declaration of its constructor but not the definition. Therefore if A::A() is defined in the implementation file, the definition of std::default_delete<B>::operator() is also only instantiated then, by which B is a complete type.

    Login or Signup to reply.
Please signup or login to give your own answer.

Back To Top
Search