Hacker News Reader

Comment by mnarayan01 | Hacker News Reader

If you assign the initialized value to a variable then you get the expected behavior: https://wandbox.org/permlink/r6csgR44BZBWudLV. What exactly is the defined destruction behavior for an object that's never (necessarily) on the stack? Or is it actually required to be on the stack in this case?

View on HN

In C++14, the spec specifies that a temporary object's destructor is called as the last step in evaluating the full expression that contains the point where it was created (C++14 §12.2).

I'm presuming it's the same in earlier versions of the language, but I don't have those specs handy ATM.

I'm more talking about the exception behavior looking at e.g. https://wandbox.org/permlink/S5paK3Z9NpeCv3I0 (which exhibits the same bug). I mean you're right, and the fact that the User object is temporary should presumably not keep the first Resource destructor from firing, just it seems weird. I guess in my defense, apparently it seems weird to GCC as well.

The spec also explicitly addresses that (automatic objects' destructors must be called after an exception)-- see section 15.2 in the C++14 spec.

There is no ambiguity in the spec here; this is a GCC bug.

I don't have the specs either, but I do remember that in Design and Evolution of C++, Stroustrup discusses nailing down the lifetime of temporary objects. I believe it was in the first standard (i.e. 1998).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com