class - Is passing a C++ object into its own constructor legal?

Question

I am surprised to accidentally discover that the following works:

#include <iostream>            
int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
  struct Foo {
    Foo(Foo& bar) {
      std::cout << &bar << std::endl;
    }
  };
  Foo foo(foo); // I can't believe this works...
  std::cout << &foo << std::endl; // but it does...
}

I am passing the address of the constructed object into its own constructor. This looks like a circular definition at the source level. Do the standards really allow you to pass an object into a function before the object is even constructed or is this undefined behavior?

I suppose it's not that odd given that all class member functions already have a pointer to the data for their class instance as an implicit parameter. And the layout of the data members is fixed at compile time.

Note, I'm NOT asking if this is useful or a good idea; I'm just tinkering around to learn more about classes.

Answer 1

This is not undefined behavior. Although foo is uninitialized, you are using it a way that is allowed by the standard. After space is allocated for an object but before it is fully initialized, you are allowed to use it limited ways. Both binding a reference to that variable and taking its address are allowed.

This is covered by defect report 363: Initialization of class from self which says:

And if so, what is the semantics of the self-initialization of UDT? For example

 #include <stdio.h>

 struct A {
        A()           { printf("A::A() %p
",            this);     }
        A(const A& a) { printf("A::A(const A&) %p %p
", this, &a); }
        ~A()          { printf("A::~A() %p
",           this);     }
 };

 int main()
 {
  A a=a;
 }

can be compiled and prints:

A::A(const A&) 0253FDD8 0253FDD8
A::~A() 0253FDD8

and the resolution was:

3.8 [basic.life] paragraph 6 indicates that the references here are valid. It's permitted to take the address of a class object before it is fully initialized, and it's permitted to pass it as an argument to a reference parameter as long as the reference can bind directly. Except for the failure to cast the pointers to void * for the %p in the printfs, these examples are standard-conforming.

The full quote of section 3.8 [basic.life] from the draft C++14 standard is as follows:

Similarly, before the lifetime of an object has started but after the storage which the object will occupy has been allocated or, after the lifetime of an object has ended and before the storage which the object occupied is reused or released, any glvalue that refers to the original object may be used but only in limited ways. For an object under construction or destruction, see 12.7. Otherwise, such a glvalue refers to allocated storage (3.7.4.2), and using the properties of the glvalue that do not depend on its value is well-defined. The program has undefined behavior if:

• an lvalue-to-rvalue conversion (4.1) is applied to such a glvalue,

• the glvalue is used to access a non-static data member or call a non-static member function of the object, or

• the glvalue is bound to a reference to a virtual base class (8.5.3), or

• the glvalue is used as the operand of a dynamic_cast (5.2.7) or as the operand of typeid.

We are not doing anything with foo that falls under undefined behavior as defined by the bullets above.

If we try this with Clang, we see an ominous warning (see it live):

warning: variable 'foo' is uninitialized when used within its own initialization [-Wuninitialized]

It is a valid warning since producing an indeterminate value from an uninitialized automatic variable is undefined behavior. However, in this case you are just binding a reference and taking the address of the variable within the constructor, which does not produce an indeterminate value and is valid. On the other hand, the following self-initialization example from the draft C++11 standard:

int x = x ;

does invoke undefined behavior.

Active issue 453: References may only bind to “valid” objects also seems relevant but is still open. The initial proposed language is consistent with Defect Report 363.