C++11, §9/7:
A standard-layout class is a class that:
- has no non-static data members of type non-standard-layout class (or array of such types) or reference,
- has no virtual functions and no virtual base classes,
- has the same access control for all non-static data members,
- has no non-standard-layout base classes,
- either has no non-static data members in the most derived class and at most one base class with non-static data members, or has no base classes with non-static data members, and
- has no base classes of the same type as the first non-static data member.
So, is there a way to make a class with standard layout non-copyable? If yes, how?
Inheriting privately from boost::noncopyable will not work, because it made copy constructor private (hence not a standard layout). The boost::noncopyable's implementation is like this :
class noncopyable
{
protected:
noncopyable() {}
~noncopyable() {}
private: // emphasize the following members are private
noncopyable( const noncopyable& );
const noncopyable& operator=( const noncopyable& );
};
Because of the private section, it is not a standard layout class. I am also note sure if private inheritance break any standard layout rule.
#include <boost/noncopyable.hpp>
#include <iostream>
const int N = 50;
struct A
{
int data[N];
};
struct B : private boost::noncopyable
{
int data[N];
};
struct C
{
A data[10];
};
struct D : private boost::noncopyable
{
B data[10];
};
int main() {
std::cout<<sizeof(A)<<std::endl;
std::cout<<sizeof(B)<<std::endl;
std::cout<<sizeof(C)<<std::endl;
std::cout<<sizeof(D)<<std::endl;
}
The output is :
200
200
2000
2004
The example above shows that inheriting privately from boost::noncopyable
changes the class into NOT standard layout compliant.
I am not sure if this is a g++ bug (I am using g++ 4.6.1), or the standard is somehow violated.
I think there is a confusion here:
The two concepts are orthogonal.
UPDATE:
The following display the very same behavior that
boost::noncopyable
:The result is
4
.I believe this is because of:
Indeed, experiment shows that introducing a
int a;
inD
prior todata
does not increases its size. I think that the fact thatB
inherits fromfoo
means thatdata
(first non-static data member) is considered to be the same type asfoo
(base class ofD
).This leads to an ambiguity:
foo* f = &d
would have the same address asfoo* g = &b.data;
if the compiler did not introduce this padding.