Hi, one of my users encountered a crash and I managed to size it down into a very small reproducable script:

class Foo
{
	Foo(){}
	Foo(Foo f){}
}
void Test(Foo f){}

void Main()
{
	auto f = Foo();
	Test(f);
}

Seems like it's due to the constructor passing by value. If I do “const Foo &in f” it doesn't crash.

I mean, this crashing makes a lot of sense if you think about it ? but perhaps it should throw a compiler error instead?

There are some issues with this. A few things are missing here, so it won't compile unless perhaps you're using a very forgiving compiler.

Having a copy-ctor taking the original object by value would invoke the copy-ctor recursively. Please don't do that.
A copy constructor takes a const reference.

When the little issues have been ironed out, you're left with a compiler error, as you would expect.
Gcc does this, and I would think other compilers would also do it. Have you tried a proper, clean build, and are both your header and implementation files saying the same thing?

You've definitely got a very lenient compiler, there. Visual C++ throws a “illegal copy constructor: first parameter must not be a 'Foo'” compiler error too.

You guys are aware that this is posted in AngelCode-forum, so its probably not C++ but AngelScript, right? :D

Juliean said:

You guys are aware that this is posted in AngelCode-forum, so its probably not C++ but AngelScript, right? :D

I wasn't. ?

I wish I could have caught that upon compile…

Haha thanks Juliean. This is indeed Angelscript. This seems to happen sometimes when I post Angelscript bugs that could be interpreted also as C++ questions. ? Sorry for any confusion!

It is a common mistake due to AngelScript syntax beeing so similar to C++ ?

Thanks for reporting this Miss. It should indeed give a compiler error, or at least not identify this constructor as the copy constructor.

I'll have it fixed as soon as possible.

I've fixed this in revision 2648.

The scenario won't give a compiler error, but it won't use the constructor as a copy constructor. Instead it will use the default constructor and then do a copy of members as is the default behaviour in AngelScript, when no copy constructor is available.