My task is to create a template type array without calling the T (template) constructor. After that I want to move some value to this array from another with std::move. How can I do this in c++? Here is my code:
void *temp = malloc((end-begin) * sizeof(T));
for (unsigned int i = begin; i < end; ++i){
temp[i] = std::move(array[i]);
}
But it isn't work. The compiler says the following: Subscript of pointer to incomplete type 'void'.
An array of void makes no sense. void is an incomplete type (and has no size), so temp[i] generates the error you're seeing.
To achieve what you want to do, why not use a std::vector, and push items into it as they become available ?
std::vector<T> temp;
for (unsigned int i = begin; i < end; ++i){
temp.push_back(std::move(array[i]));
}
If you really want to do it by hand, you're looking for placement new. First you allocate a "raw buffer" of unsigned chars:
unsigned char* buf = new unsigned char(end-begin);
or:
auto buf = std::make_unique<unsigned char[]>(end-begin);
and then you write things like new (buf) T, new (buf+sizeof(T)) T, new (buf+2*sizeof(T)) T to "emplace" your objects into that memory space.
The problem is, in the above example I've completely ignored alignment requirements, which is dangerous.
So, instead of replicating what memory pools and std::vector do, just use std::vector!
std::vector<T> vec;
vec.reserve(end-begin);
for (unsigned int i = begin; i < end; ++i){
vec.push_back(std::move(array[i]);
}
and you're done.
As others point out void has no defined size so void* can't be indexed as an array.
Where does temp[1] begin?
A naïve fix of:
T *temp = std::malloc((end-begin) * sizeof(T));
Is just as bad when used in conjunction with:
temp[i] = std::move(array[i]);
That code will call the assignment operator and if non-trivial will fail when acting on the garbage that is in temp[i]. For example, if the assignment explicitly or implicitly de-allocates resources in the assignment target it will operate on the uninitialized temp[i] and fail.
If (IF!) you did this the correct code would be:
std::memcpy(temp+i*sizeof(i),array[I],sizeof(T));
That line of code is essentially assuming that T is a trivially-copyable type.
The first line is assuming objects of T have a trivial default constructor.
If T has a trivial default constructor most compilers will optimize the element initialization away (which is what I assume the asker is trying to avoid).
So the recommended code (using a for loop) is:
T* temp= new T[end-being];
for(unsigned int i=begin;i<end;++i){
temp[i-begin]=array[i];
}
NB: This code also fixes a bug in the original code that breaks when begin!=0.
The code appears to be copying a sub-section from the middle of array to the start of temp but forgets to start at index 0 of temp.
But the recommended C++ approach to such copying is:
T* temp= new T[end-being];
std::copy(array+begin,array+end,temp);
Good implementations will determine and take advantage of any bulk memory operations where possible.
So implicitly this should result in std::memmove(temp,array,(end-begin)*sizeof(T)); if valid.
The only final twist that a compiler might not recognize is that the potentially slightly more efficient
std::memcpy(temp,array,(end-begin)*sizeof(T));
Is actually valid in this case because we know temp cannot overlap with array (let alone the range being copied).
Footnote: As pointed out in the comments the most conventional C++ approach is to use std::vector which can normally be assumed to be using these optimizations behind the scenes. However if for some reason re-architecting the application is not possible or desirable this answer provides the valid efficient way of re-writing the code provided.
std::vector to notice the trivialities and use bulk copies and indeed take advantage of std::memcpy! But there are (some slight) overheads of std::vector and if the poster has some reason to set those aside this is the right way to achieve the outcome without recoding their application... I will make a note.Try
T *temp = (T*) malloc((end-begin) * sizeof(T));
T is std::string there still is no string at temp[i] so trying to assign to it is invalid.