reference to return value

[KIBO]

Is the following code safe?

GroupSet GetSettings() { GroupSet g; /*fill g*/ return g; }

GroupSet &refSet = Gettings();

I would say not since a reference to a temporary object is kept. Or is there RVO in action here so it might break on another compiler?

[Mozza314]

No, not safe because a reference to a temporary is being kept, like you said. The return value of GetSettings() goes out of scope after a reference to it is stored in refSet. Then again, if you never use refSet you won't have a problem. RVO is irrelevant here, but the behaviour is undefined if you go and use refSet, so you may see differences for different compilers/different systems/even different executions.

On second thought, have you tested this code? I got a compiler error with this. There's actually a weird rule about non-const references surrounding this issue:

#include <iostream>

int GetInt() { return 3; }

int main()
{
    int& x = GetInt();
    std::cout << x << std::endl;

    return 0;
}

tempRef.cpp: In function ‘int main()’:
tempRef.cpp:7: error: invalid initialization of non-const reference of type
‘int&’ from a temporary of type ‘int’

[CornedBee]

Visual C++ will accept this, but it's not correct standard C++.

If you change the reference to be const, it's safe, but only as long as you follow the rules. People often make mistakes there, so it might be better to avoid it unless you know what you're doing.

[KIBO]

Thanks a lot. We use VC yes so it works. Too much pressure right now to change it everywhere but noted for if we ever change compilers

[Mozza314]

Whether it's a const or non-const, you still have the problem that you're referencing something which doesn't exist anymore, so the program is undefined and you can get a segfault. For this reason, I really wouldn't want to just leave it as is. Even though it may seem to work now, it could blow up later without you knowing what it is and that would really be time consuming.

[laserlight]

Whether it's a const or non-const, you still have the problem that you're referencing something which doesn't exist anymore, so the program is undefined and you can get a segfault.

Not quite: CornedBee is right to say that "if you change the reference to be const, it's safe, but only as long as you follow the rules" because the lifetime of the object returned would be extended to that of the const reference.

[Mozza314]

Not quite: CornedBee is right to say that "if you change the reference to be const, it's safe, but only as long as you follow the rules" because the lifetime of the object returned would be extended to that of the const reference.

Bizarre! Thanks; I didn't know that one. Is there a name for it or do you know a good place I could read more about it?