[SOLVED] C++ object construction -- direct initialization versus using the '=' operator, are they equivalent?

C++ object construction -- direct initialization versus using the '=' operator, are they equivalent?

In C++, are these two styles of initializing a class-object functionally equivalent, or are there some situations where they might have differing semantics and generate different code?

SomeClass foo(1,2,3);

auto foo = SomeClass(1,2,3);

Solution

The 1st one is direct initialization.

The 2nd one is copy initialization, in concept foo is copy-initialized from the direct-initialized temporary SomeClass. (BTW it has nothing to do with operator=; it's initialization but not assignment.)

Because of mandatory copy elision (since C++17) they have the same effect exactly, the object is initialized by the appropriate constructor directly.

In the initialization of an object, when the initializer expression is a prvalue of the same class type (ignoring cv-qualification) as the variable type:
T x = T(T(f())); // only one call to default constructor of T, to initialize x

Before C++17 copy elision is an optimization; even the copy/move construction might be omitted the appropriate copy/move constructor has to be usable; if not (e.g. the constructor is marked as explicit) the 2nd style won't work while the 1st is fine.

This is an optimization: even when it takes place and the copy/move (since C++11) constructor is not called, it still must be present and accessible (as if no optimization happened at all), otherwise the program is ill-formed: