struct A;
struct B {
B() { new A(); } // error: allocation of incomplete type 'A'
};
使用unique_ptr将无助于：(2)
struct A;
struct B {
B() { std::make_unique<A>(); } // error: due to ~unique_ptr()
};
然后(我的惊喜)我发现,这将编译：(3)
struct A;
struct B {
B() { std::make_unique<A>(); }
};
struct A {}; // OK,when a deFinition is added **below**
然后我检查,这是否有助于新的 – 不是：(4)
struct A;
struct B {
B() { new A(); } // error: allocation of incomplete type 'A'
};
struct A {};
我认为它与模板有关,事实上：在模板中封装新的内容会编译：(5)
template <typename T>
T* my_new() { return new T(); } // OK,when wrapped in template
struct A;
struct B {
B() { my_new<A>(); }
};
struct A {};
template <typename T>
T* my_new() { return new T(); } // error: allocation of incomplete type 'A'
struct A;
struct B {
B() { my_new<A>(); }
};
// do note: deFinition of A removed
这里发生了什么？据我所知,编译器必须知道A的大小/定义来分配它,因此仅仅声明它是不够的.另外我相信这个定义必须在分配之前.
这似乎是正确的,当直接使用新的(1,4).但是,当新的包装,显然我错了(2,3,5,6).
到目前为止我发现的可能的解释是：
>完成类型的检查将被延迟,直到出现模板实例化.我认为这是正确的,但在我的情况下,直接使用新的A()和对my_new< A>()的调用几乎在同一个位置.所以这不可能是原因.对？
>使用不完整的类型作为模板参数可能是未定义的行为.这是真的吗即使启用所有警告,编译器也不会抱怨.比较5和6似乎表明,编译器足够聪明,可以确定下面的定义(从而实际上使得类型完整).
为什么4被认为是不正确的,而5个编译(或者5是只是虚假地编译未定义的行为[但是3必须有缺陷,对吗？
btw：用cl -3.5.0和g -4.9.2测试
解决方法
1 For a function template specialization,a member function template
specialization,or a specialization for a member function or static
data member of a class template,if the specialization is implicitly
instantiated because it is referenced from within another template
specialization and the context from which it is referenced depends on
a template parameter,the point of instantiation of the specialization
is the point of instantiation of the enclosing specialization.
Otherwise,the point of instantiation for such a specialization
immediately follows the namespace scope declaration or deFinition that
refers to the specialization.8 A specialization for a function template,a member function template,
or of a member function or static data member of a class template may
have multiple points of instantiations within a translation unit,and
in addition to the points of instantiation described above,for any
such specialization that has a point of instantiation within the
translation unit,the end of the translation unit is also considered a
point of instantiation. A specialization for a class template has at
most one point of instantiation within a translation unit. A
specialization for any template may have points of instantiation in
multiple translation units. If two different points of instantiation
give a template specialization different meanings according to the one
deFinition rule (3.2),the program is ill-formed,no diagnostic
required.
在my_new< A>中有两点实例化,一个在B定义的结尾,一个在翻译单元的末尾.由于这两点会导致不同的含义(代码片段3和5),程序是不完整的NDR(即它有未定义的行为).
