我遇到过几次POD-type这个术语。 这是什么意思?
当前回答
使用static_assert从c++ 11到c++ 17和POD效果的所有非POD案例示例
std::is_pod是在c++ 11中添加的，所以现在让我们先考虑这个标准。
std::is_pod将从c++ 20中删除，如https://stackoverflow.com/a/48435532/895245所述，让我们在对替换的支持到达时更新它。
随着标准的发展，POD限制变得越来越宽松，我的目标是通过ifdefs在示例中涵盖所有放松。
libstdc++在https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/gcc-8_2_0-release/libstdc%2B%2B-v3/testsuite/20_util/is_pod/value.cc上有少量的测试，但它太少了。维护者:如果你读了这篇文章，请合并。我懒得在https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/199708/is-there-a-compliance-test-for-c-compilers上查看所有提到的c++测试套件项目
#include <type_traits>
#include <array>
#include <vector>
int main() {
#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
// # Not POD
//
// Non-POD examples. Let's just walk all non-recursive non-POD branches of cppreference.
{
// Non-trivial implies non-POD.
// https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/named_req/TrivialType
{
// Has one or more default constructors, all of which are either
// trivial or deleted, and at least one of which is not deleted.
{
// Not trivial because we removed the default constructor
// by using our own custom non-default constructor.
{
struct C {
C(int) {}
};
static_assert(std::is_trivially_copyable<C>(), "");
static_assert(!std::is_trivial<C>(), "");
static_assert(!std::is_pod<C>(), "");
}
// No, this is not a default trivial constructor either:
// https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/default_constructor
//
// The constructor is not user-provided (i.e., is implicitly-defined or
// defaulted on its first declaration)
{
struct C {
C() {}
};
static_assert(std::is_trivially_copyable<C>(), "");
static_assert(!std::is_trivial<C>(), "");
static_assert(!std::is_pod<C>(), "");
}
}
// Not trivial because not trivially copyable.
{
struct C {
C(C&) {}
};
static_assert(!std::is_trivially_copyable<C>(), "");
static_assert(!std::is_trivial<C>(), "");
static_assert(!std::is_pod<C>(), "");
}
}
// Non-standard layout implies non-POD.
// https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/named_req/StandardLayoutType
{
// Non static members with different access control.
{
// i is public and j is private.
{
struct C {
public:
int i;
private:
int j;
};
static_assert(!std::is_standard_layout<C>(), "");
static_assert(!std::is_pod<C>(), "");
}
// These have the same access control.
{
struct C {
private:
int i;
int j;
};
static_assert(std::is_standard_layout<C>(), "");
static_assert(std::is_pod<C>(), "");
struct D {
public:
int i;
int j;
};
static_assert(std::is_standard_layout<D>(), "");
static_assert(std::is_pod<D>(), "");
}
}
// Virtual function.
{
struct C {
virtual void f() = 0;
};
static_assert(!std::is_standard_layout<C>(), "");
static_assert(!std::is_pod<C>(), "");
}
// Non-static member that is reference.
{
struct C {
int &i;
};
static_assert(!std::is_standard_layout<C>(), "");
static_assert(!std::is_pod<C>(), "");
}
// Neither:
//
// - has no base classes with non-static data members, or
// - has no non-static data members in the most derived class
// and at most one base class with non-static data members
{
// Non POD because has two base classes with non-static data members.
{
struct Base1 {
int i;
};
struct Base2 {
int j;
};
struct C : Base1, Base2 {};
static_assert(!std::is_standard_layout<C>(), "");
static_assert(!std::is_pod<C>(), "");
}
// POD: has just one base class with non-static member.
{
struct Base1 {
int i;
};
struct C : Base1 {};
static_assert(std::is_standard_layout<C>(), "");
static_assert(std::is_pod<C>(), "");
}
// Just one base class with non-static member: Base1, Base2 has none.
{
struct Base1 {
int i;
};
struct Base2 {};
struct C : Base1, Base2 {};
static_assert(std::is_standard_layout<C>(), "");
static_assert(std::is_pod<C>(), "");
}
}
// Base classes of the same type as the first non-static data member.
// TODO failing on GCC 8.1 -std=c++11, 14 and 17.
{
struct C {};
struct D : C {
C c;
};
//static_assert(!std::is_standard_layout<C>(), "");
//static_assert(!std::is_pod<C>(), "");
};
// C++14 standard layout new rules, yay!
{
// Has two (possibly indirect) base class subobjects of the same type.
// Here C has two base classes which are indirectly "Base".
//
// TODO failing on GCC 8.1 -std=c++11, 14 and 17.
// even though the example was copy pasted from cppreference.
{
struct Q {};
struct S : Q { };
struct T : Q { };
struct U : S, T { }; // not a standard-layout class: two base class subobjects of type Q
//static_assert(!std::is_standard_layout<U>(), "");
//static_assert(!std::is_pod<U>(), "");
}
// Has all non-static data members and bit-fields declared in the same class
// (either all in the derived or all in some base).
{
struct Base { int i; };
struct Middle : Base {};
struct C : Middle { int j; };
static_assert(!std::is_standard_layout<C>(), "");
static_assert(!std::is_pod<C>(), "");
}
// None of the base class subobjects has the same type as
// for non-union types, as the first non-static data member
//
// TODO: similar to the C++11 for which we could not make a proper example,
// but with recursivity added.
// TODO come up with an example that is POD in C++14 but not in C++11.
}
}
}
// # POD
//
// POD examples. Everything that does not fall neatly in the non-POD examples.
{
// Can't get more POD than this.
{
struct C {};
static_assert(std::is_pod<C>(), "");
static_assert(std::is_pod<int>(), "");
}
// Array of POD is POD.
{
struct C {};
static_assert(std::is_pod<C>(), "");
static_assert(std::is_pod<C[]>(), "");
}
// Private member: became POD in C++11
// https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4762788/can-a-class-with-all-private-members-be-a-pod-class/4762944#4762944
{
struct C {
private:
int i;
};
#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
static_assert(std::is_pod<C>(), "");
#else
static_assert(!std::is_pod<C>(), "");
#endif
}
// Most standard library containers are not POD because they are not trivial,
// which can be seen directly from their interface definition in the standard.
// https://stackoverflow.com/questions/27165436/pod-implications-for-a-struct-which-holds-an-standard-library-container
{
static_assert(!std::is_pod<std::vector<int>>(), "");
static_assert(!std::is_trivially_copyable<std::vector<int>>(), "");
// Some might be though:
// https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3674247/is-stdarrayt-s-guaranteed-to-be-pod-if-t-is-pod
static_assert(std::is_pod<std::array<int, 1>>(), "");
}
}
// # POD effects
//
// Now let's verify what effects does PODness have.
//
// Note that this is not easy to do automatically, since many of the
// failures are undefined behaviour.
//
// A good initial list can be found at:
// https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4178175/what-are-aggregates-and-pods-and-how-why-are-they-special/4178176#4178176
{
struct Pod {
uint32_t i;
uint64_t j;
};
static_assert(std::is_pod<Pod>(), "");
struct NotPod {
NotPod(uint32_t i, uint64_t j) : i(i), j(j) {}
uint32_t i;
uint64_t j;
};
static_assert(!std::is_pod<NotPod>(), "");
// __attribute__((packed)) only works for POD, and is ignored for non-POD, and emits a warning
// https://stackoverflow.com/questions/35152877/ignoring-packed-attribute-because-of-unpacked-non-pod-field/52986680#52986680
{
struct C {
int i;
};
struct D : C {
int j;
};
struct E {
D d;
} /*__attribute__((packed))*/;
static_assert(std::is_pod<C>(), "");
static_assert(!std::is_pod<D>(), "");
static_assert(!std::is_pod<E>(), "");
}
}
#endif
}
GitHub上游。
测试:
for std in 11 14 17; do echo $std; g++-8 -Wall -Werror -Wextra -pedantic -std=c++$std pod.cpp; done
Ubuntu 18.04, GCC 8.2.0。
其他回答
POD的概念和类型特征std::is_pod将在c++ 20中被弃用。有关进一步信息，请参阅此问题。
使用static_assert从c++ 11到c++ 17和POD效果的所有非POD案例示例
std::is_pod是在c++ 11中添加的，所以现在让我们先考虑这个标准。
std::is_pod将从c++ 20中删除，如https://stackoverflow.com/a/48435532/895245所述，让我们在对替换的支持到达时更新它。
随着标准的发展，POD限制变得越来越宽松，我的目标是通过ifdefs在示例中涵盖所有放松。
libstdc++在https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/gcc-8_2_0-release/libstdc%2B%2B-v3/testsuite/20_util/is_pod/value.cc上有少量的测试，但它太少了。维护者:如果你读了这篇文章，请合并。我懒得在https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/199708/is-there-a-compliance-test-for-c-compilers上查看所有提到的c++测试套件项目
#include <type_traits>
#include <array>
#include <vector>
int main() {
#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
// # Not POD
//
// Non-POD examples. Let's just walk all non-recursive non-POD branches of cppreference.
{
// Non-trivial implies non-POD.
// https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/named_req/TrivialType
{
// Has one or more default constructors, all of which are either
// trivial or deleted, and at least one of which is not deleted.
{
// Not trivial because we removed the default constructor
// by using our own custom non-default constructor.
{
struct C {
C(int) {}
};
static_assert(std::is_trivially_copyable<C>(), "");
static_assert(!std::is_trivial<C>(), "");
static_assert(!std::is_pod<C>(), "");
}
// No, this is not a default trivial constructor either:
// https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/default_constructor
//
// The constructor is not user-provided (i.e., is implicitly-defined or
// defaulted on its first declaration)
{
struct C {
C() {}
};
static_assert(std::is_trivially_copyable<C>(), "");
static_assert(!std::is_trivial<C>(), "");
static_assert(!std::is_pod<C>(), "");
}
}
// Not trivial because not trivially copyable.
{
struct C {
C(C&) {}
};
static_assert(!std::is_trivially_copyable<C>(), "");
static_assert(!std::is_trivial<C>(), "");
static_assert(!std::is_pod<C>(), "");
}
}
// Non-standard layout implies non-POD.
// https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/named_req/StandardLayoutType
{
// Non static members with different access control.
{
// i is public and j is private.
{
struct C {
public:
int i;
private:
int j;
};
static_assert(!std::is_standard_layout<C>(), "");
static_assert(!std::is_pod<C>(), "");
}
// These have the same access control.
{
struct C {
private:
int i;
int j;
};
static_assert(std::is_standard_layout<C>(), "");
static_assert(std::is_pod<C>(), "");
struct D {
public:
int i;
int j;
};
static_assert(std::is_standard_layout<D>(), "");
static_assert(std::is_pod<D>(), "");
}
}
// Virtual function.
{
struct C {
virtual void f() = 0;
};
static_assert(!std::is_standard_layout<C>(), "");
static_assert(!std::is_pod<C>(), "");
}
// Non-static member that is reference.
{
struct C {
int &i;
};
static_assert(!std::is_standard_layout<C>(), "");
static_assert(!std::is_pod<C>(), "");
}
// Neither:
//
// - has no base classes with non-static data members, or
// - has no non-static data members in the most derived class
// and at most one base class with non-static data members
{
// Non POD because has two base classes with non-static data members.
{
struct Base1 {
int i;
};
struct Base2 {
int j;
};
struct C : Base1, Base2 {};
static_assert(!std::is_standard_layout<C>(), "");
static_assert(!std::is_pod<C>(), "");
}
// POD: has just one base class with non-static member.
{
struct Base1 {
int i;
};
struct C : Base1 {};
static_assert(std::is_standard_layout<C>(), "");
static_assert(std::is_pod<C>(), "");
}
// Just one base class with non-static member: Base1, Base2 has none.
{
struct Base1 {
int i;
};
struct Base2 {};
struct C : Base1, Base2 {};
static_assert(std::is_standard_layout<C>(), "");
static_assert(std::is_pod<C>(), "");
}
}
// Base classes of the same type as the first non-static data member.
// TODO failing on GCC 8.1 -std=c++11, 14 and 17.
{
struct C {};
struct D : C {
C c;
};
//static_assert(!std::is_standard_layout<C>(), "");
//static_assert(!std::is_pod<C>(), "");
};
// C++14 standard layout new rules, yay!
{
// Has two (possibly indirect) base class subobjects of the same type.
// Here C has two base classes which are indirectly "Base".
//
// TODO failing on GCC 8.1 -std=c++11, 14 and 17.
// even though the example was copy pasted from cppreference.
{
struct Q {};
struct S : Q { };
struct T : Q { };
struct U : S, T { }; // not a standard-layout class: two base class subobjects of type Q
//static_assert(!std::is_standard_layout<U>(), "");
//static_assert(!std::is_pod<U>(), "");
}
// Has all non-static data members and bit-fields declared in the same class
// (either all in the derived or all in some base).
{
struct Base { int i; };
struct Middle : Base {};
struct C : Middle { int j; };
static_assert(!std::is_standard_layout<C>(), "");
static_assert(!std::is_pod<C>(), "");
}
// None of the base class subobjects has the same type as
// for non-union types, as the first non-static data member
//
// TODO: similar to the C++11 for which we could not make a proper example,
// but with recursivity added.
// TODO come up with an example that is POD in C++14 but not in C++11.
}
}
}
// # POD
//
// POD examples. Everything that does not fall neatly in the non-POD examples.
{
// Can't get more POD than this.
{
struct C {};
static_assert(std::is_pod<C>(), "");
static_assert(std::is_pod<int>(), "");
}
// Array of POD is POD.
{
struct C {};
static_assert(std::is_pod<C>(), "");
static_assert(std::is_pod<C[]>(), "");
}
// Private member: became POD in C++11
// https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4762788/can-a-class-with-all-private-members-be-a-pod-class/4762944#4762944
{
struct C {
private:
int i;
};
#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
static_assert(std::is_pod<C>(), "");
#else
static_assert(!std::is_pod<C>(), "");
#endif
}
// Most standard library containers are not POD because they are not trivial,
// which can be seen directly from their interface definition in the standard.
// https://stackoverflow.com/questions/27165436/pod-implications-for-a-struct-which-holds-an-standard-library-container
{
static_assert(!std::is_pod<std::vector<int>>(), "");
static_assert(!std::is_trivially_copyable<std::vector<int>>(), "");
// Some might be though:
// https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3674247/is-stdarrayt-s-guaranteed-to-be-pod-if-t-is-pod
static_assert(std::is_pod<std::array<int, 1>>(), "");
}
}
// # POD effects
//
// Now let's verify what effects does PODness have.
//
// Note that this is not easy to do automatically, since many of the
// failures are undefined behaviour.
//
// A good initial list can be found at:
// https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4178175/what-are-aggregates-and-pods-and-how-why-are-they-special/4178176#4178176
{
struct Pod {
uint32_t i;
uint64_t j;
};
static_assert(std::is_pod<Pod>(), "");
struct NotPod {
NotPod(uint32_t i, uint64_t j) : i(i), j(j) {}
uint32_t i;
uint64_t j;
};
static_assert(!std::is_pod<NotPod>(), "");
// __attribute__((packed)) only works for POD, and is ignored for non-POD, and emits a warning
// https://stackoverflow.com/questions/35152877/ignoring-packed-attribute-because-of-unpacked-non-pod-field/52986680#52986680
{
struct C {
int i;
};
struct D : C {
int j;
};
struct E {
D d;
} /*__attribute__((packed))*/;
static_assert(std::is_pod<C>(), "");
static_assert(!std::is_pod<D>(), "");
static_assert(!std::is_pod<E>(), "");
}
}
#endif
}
GitHub上游。
测试:
for std in 11 14 17; do echo $std; g++-8 -Wall -Werror -Wextra -pedantic -std=c++$std pod.cpp; done
Ubuntu 18.04, GCC 8.2.0。
为什么我们需要区分POD和非POD呢?
c++最初是作为C的扩展而诞生的。虽然现代c++不再是严格意义上的C的超集，但人们仍然期望两者之间具有高度的兼容性。一个平台的“C ABI”还经常充当该平台上其他语言的事实上的标准中介语言ABI。
粗略地说，POD类型是一种与C兼容的类型，也许同样重要的是与某些ABI优化兼容。
为了与C兼容，我们需要满足两个约束条件。
布局必须与对应的C类型保持一致。 该类型必须以与相应的C类型相同的方式传递给函数并从函数返回。
某些c++特性与此不兼容。
虚方法要求编译器插入一个或多个指向虚方法表的指针，这在C语言中是不存在的。
用户定义的复制构造函数、移动构造函数、复制赋值和析构函数对参数传递和返回都有影响。许多C abi在寄存器中传递和返回小参数，但是传递给用户定义的构造函数/赋值/析构函数的引用只能处理内存位置。
因此，有必要定义哪些类型可以“兼容C”，哪些类型不能。c++ 03在这方面有点过于严格，任何用户定义的构造函数都将禁用内置构造函数，任何试图将它们添加回来的尝试都将导致它们是用户定义的，因此类型为非pod。c++ 11开放了很多东西，允许用户重新引入内置构造函数。
With C++, Plain Old Data doesn't just mean that things like int, char, etc are the only types used. Plain Old Data really means in practice that you can take a struct memcpy it from one location in memory to another and things will work exactly like you would expect (i.e. not blow up). This breaks if your class, or any class your class contains, has as a member that is a pointer or a reference or a class that has a virtual function. Essentially, if pointers have to be involved somewhere, its not Plain Old Data.
普通旧数据
简而言之，它是所有内置数据类型(例如int、char、float、long、unsigned char、double等)和POD数据的所有聚合。是的，这是递归定义。；）
更清楚地说，POD就是我们所说的“结构体”:仅存储数据的单元或单元组。
推荐文章
- 面试问题:检查一个字符串是否是另一个字符串的旋转
- 如何使用枚举作为标志在c++ ?
- 在c++程序中以编程方式检测字节序
- 为什么我的程序不能在Windows 7下用法语编译?
- 如何获取变量的类型?
- 什么是奇怪的重复模板模式(CRTP)?
- 连接两个向量的最佳方法是什么?
- 在c++中，是通过值传递更好，还是通过引用到const传递更好?
- 在STL中deque到底是什么?
- Windows上最好的免费c++分析器是什么?
- 如何自动转换强类型枚举为int?
- 在一个类中使用具有成员函数的泛型std::function对象
- 'for'循环中的后增量和前增量产生相同的输出
- 虚函数和纯虚函数的区别
- c++中的_tmain()和main()有什么区别?
