This is ill-formed because FOO
has an implicit copy constructor defined as:
FOO(FOO const&);
And you write FOO test = foo;
with foo
of type volatile FOO
, invoking:
FOO(volatile FOO const&);
But references-to-volatile to references-to-non-volatile implicit conversion is ill-formed.
From here, two solutions emerge:
- don't make volatile to non-volatile conversions;
- define a suited copy constructor or copy the object members "manually";
const_cast
can remove the volatile qualifier, but this is undefined behavior to use that if your underlying object is effectively volatile.
Could I possibly use memcopy() for that?
No you cannot, memcpy
is incompatible with volatile objects: thre is no overload of it which takes pointers-to-volatile, and there is nothing you can do without invoking undefined behavior.
So, as a conclusion, your best shot if you cannot add a constructor to FOO
is to define:
FOO FOO_copy(FOO volatile const& other)
{
FOO result;
result.a = other.a;
result.b = other.b;
result.c = other.c;
return result;
}
Or with C++11's std::tie
:
FOO FOO_copy(FOO volatile const& other)
{
FOO result;
std::tie(result.a, result.b, result.c) = std::tie(other.a, other.b, other.c);
return result;
}
与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…