If the class doesn’t have the constructor, will the compiler make one default constructor for it ?
Programmers new to C++ often have two common misunderstandings:
That a default constructor is synthesized for every class that does
not define one
from the book Inside the C++ Object Model
I am at a loss…
This is well explained in the section from which this quote is taken. I will not paraphrase it in its entirety, but here is a short summary of the section content.
First of all, you need to understand the following terms:
implicitly-declared,implicitly-defined,trivial,non-trivialandsynthesized(a term that is used by Stanley Lippman, but is not used in the standard).implicitly-declared
A constructor is
implicitly-declaredfor a class if there is nouser-declaredconstructor in this class. For example, this classstruct T { };does not declare any constructor, so the compiler implicitly declares a default constructor. On the other hand, this classstruct T { T(int); };declares a constructor, so the compiler will not declare an implicit default constructor. You will not be able to create an instance ofTwithout parameters, unless you define your own default constructor.implicitly-defined
An
implicitly-declaredconstructor isimplicitly-definedwhen it is used, i.e. when an instance is created without parameters. Assuming the following classstruct T { };, the lineT t;will trigger the definition ofT::T(). Otherwise, you would have a linker error since the constructor would be declared but not defined. However, an implicitly-defined constructor does not necessarily have any code associated with it! A default constructor is synthesized (meaning that some code is created for it) by the compiler only under certain circumstances.trivial constructor
An
implicitly-declareddefault constructor istrivialwhen:trivialconstructors andtrivialconstructors.In this case, the default compiler has nothing to do, so there is no code synthesized for it. For instance, in the following code
the construction of
tdoes not involve any operations (you can see that by looking at the generated assembly: no constructor is called to constructt).non-trivial
On the other hand, if the class does not meet the three requirements stated above, its
implicitly-declareddefault constructor will benon-trivial, meaning that it will involve some operations that must be performed in order to respect the language semantics. In this case, the compiler willsynthesizean implementation of the constructor performing these operations.For instance, consider the following class:
Since it has a virtual member function, its default constructor must set the virtual table pointer to the correct value (assuming the implementation use a virtual method table, of course).
Similarly, the constructor of this class
must call the string default constructor, as it is not
trivial. To perform these operations, the compiler generates the code for the default constructor, and calls it anytime you create an instance without parameters. You can check this by looking at the assembly corresponding to this instantiationNonTrivial n;(you should see a function call, unless the constructor has been inlined).Summary
When you don’t provide any constructor for your class, the compiler implicitly declares a default one. If you try to use it, the compiler implicitly defines it, if it can (it is not always possible, for instance when a class has a non-default-constructible member). However, this implicit definition does not imply the generation of any code. The compiler needs to generate code for the constructor (synthesize it) only if it is non-trivial, meaning that it involves certain operations needed to implement the language semantics.
N.B.
Stanley B Lippman’s “Inside the C++ object model” and this answer deals with (a possible) implementation of C++, not its semantics. As a consequence, none of the above can be generalized to all compilers: as far as I know, an implementation is perfectly allowed to generate code even for a trivial constructor. From the C++ user point of view, all that matters is the “implicitly-declared/defined` aspect (and also the trivial/non-trivial distinction, as it has some implications (for instance, an object of a class with non-trivial constructor cannot be a member of a union)).