I am struggling to understand implicit move operations when a class has a member whose move operations were not defined:
int main() {
struct A // no move: move = copy
{
A() = default;
A(const A&) {
cout << "A'copy-ctor\n";
};
A& operator=(const A&) {
cout << "A'copy-assign\n";
return *this;
}
};
struct B
{
B() = default;
A a; // does this make B non-moveable?
unique_ptr<int> upi;
// B(B&&) noexcept = default;
// B& operator=(B&&)noexcept = default;
};
A a;
A a2 = std::move(a); // ok use copy ctor instead of move one
a2 = std::move(a); // ok use copy assignment instead of move one
B b;
B b2 = std::move(b); // why this works?
b = std::move(b2); // and this works?
// b = b2; // error: copy deleted because of non-copyable member upi
cout << "\nDone!\n";
}
So what I see is A is a non-moveable class because of the definition of its copy control operations so it can only be copied and any attempt to move an object of this class, the corresponding copy operation is used instead.
Until here it is OK if i am correct. But B has a non-copy-able object upi which is a unique_ptr thus the copy operations are defined as deleted functions so we cannot copy objects of this class. But this class has a non-move-able object a thus i think that this class (B) is neither copy-able nor move-able. But why the initialization of b2 and the assignment of b works fine? What happens exactly?
B b2 = std::move(b); // ok?!
Why the line above invokes the copy constructor of class A and does it invoke move constructor of B?
Things get more worse for me: if I uncomment the lines of move operations in B, the initialization above will not compile complaining about referencing a deleted funtion, the same thing for the assignment!
Can anyone help me what happens exactly? I have googled and read in cppreference and many websites before posting the question here.
The output:
A'copy-ctor
A'copy-assign
A'copy-ctor
A'copy-assign
Done!
Keep in mind what it means to "move" data in C++ (assuming we follow the usual conventions). If you move object x to object y, then y receives all the data that was in x and x is... well, we don't care what x is as long as it is still valid for destruction. Often we think of x as losing all of its data, but that is not required. All that is required is that x is valid. If x ends up with the same data as y, we don't care.
Copying x to y causes y to receive all the data that was in x, and x is left in a valid state (assuming the copy operation follows conventions and is not buggy). Thus, copying counts as moving. The reason for defining move operations in addition to copy operations is not to permit something new, but to permit greater efficiency in some cases. Anything that can be copied can be moved unless you take steps to prevent moves.
So what I see is A is a non-moveable class because of the definition of its copy control operations so it can only be copied and any attempt to move an object of this class, the corresponding copy operation is used instead.
What I see is that A is a moveable class (despite the lack of move constructor and move assignment), because of the definition of its copy control operations. Any attempt to move an object of this class will fall back on the corresponding copy operation. If you want a class to be copyable but not movable, you need to delete the move operations, while retaining the copy ones. (Try it. Add A(A&&) = delete; to your definition of A.)
The B class has one member that can be moved or copied, and one member that can be moved but not copied. So B itself can be moved but not copied. When B is moved, the unique_ptr member will be moved as you expect, and the A member will be copied (the fallback for moving objects of type A).
Things get more worse for me: if I uncomment the lines of move operations in B, the initialization above will not compile complaining about referencing a deleted funtion, the same thing for the assignment!
Read the error message more closely. When I replicated this result, the "use of deleted function" error was followed by a note providing more details: the move constructor was deleted because "its exception-specification does not match the implicit exception-specification". Removing the noexcept keywords allowed the code to compile (using gcc 9.2 and 6.1).
Alternatively, you could add noexcept to the copy constructor and copy assignment of A (keeping noexcept on the move operations of B). This is one way to demonstrate that the default move operations of B use the copy operations of A.
Here is a summary of #JaMiT's excellent answer:
Class A is moveable via it's copy-constructor and copy-assignment operator, even though class A is not MoveConstructible and is not MoveAssignable. See the notes on cppreference.com's pages for MoveConstructible and MoveAssignable.
And thus class B is also moveable.
The language allows you to prevent moveability for class A by explicitly =delete'ing the move-constructor and move-assignment, even though class A is still copyable.
Is there a practical reason to have a copyable but not-moveable class? Someone asked just this question several years ago here. The answers and comments struggled to find any practical reason to want a copyable but not-moveable class.
std::move does not force object to be copied. It just returns &&-reference (which allows compiler to use move ctor/assign operator).
In cases 1,2 object is copied.
In 3,4 cases (i think) object is moved. But A is still copied because it cannot be moved.
Related
In C++11, one can explicitly default a special member function, if its implicit generation was automatically prevented.
However, explicitly defaulting a special member function only undoes the implicit deletion caused by manually declaring some of the other special member functions (copy operations, destructor, etc.), it does not force the compiler to generate the function and the code is considered to be well formed even if the function can't in fact be generated.
Consider the following scenario:
struct A
{
A () = default;
A (const A&) = default;
A (A&&) = delete; // Move constructor is deleted here
};
struct B
{
B () = default;
B (const B&) = default;
B (B&&) = default; // Move constructor is defaulted here
A a;
};
The move constructor in B will not be generated by the compiler, because doing so would cause a compilation error (A's move constructor is deleted). Without explicitly deleting A's constructor, B's move constructor would be generated as expected (copying A, rather than moving it).
Attempting to move such an object will silently use the copy constructor instead:
B b;
B b2 (std::move(b)); // Will call B's copy constructor
Is there a way to force the compiler into either generating the function or issue a compilation error if it can't? Without this guarantee, it's difficult to rely on defaulted move constructors, if a single deleted constructor can disable move for entire object hierarchies.
There is a way to detect types like A. But only if the type explicitly deletes the move constructor. If the move constructor is implicitly generated as deleted, then it will not participate in overload resolution. This is why B is movable even though A is not. B defaults the move constructor, which means it gets implicitly deleted, so copying happens.
B is therefore move constructible. However, A is not. So it's a simple matter of this:
struct B
{
static_assert(is_move_constructible<A>::value, "Oops...");
B () = default;
B (const B&) = default;
B (B&&) = default; // Move constructor is defaulted here
A a;
};
Now, there is no general way to cause any type which contains copy-only types to do what you want. That is, you have to static assert on each type individually; you can't put some syntax in the default move constructor to make attempts to move B fail.
The reason for that has to do in part with backwards compatibility. Think about all the pre-C++11 code that declared user-defined copy constructors. By the rules of move constructor generation in C++11, all of them would have deleted move constructors. Which means that any code of the form T t = FuncReturningTByValue(); would fail, even though it worked just fine in C++98/03 by calling the copy constructor. So the move-by-copy issue worked around this by making these copy instead of moving if the move constructor could not be generated.
But since = default means "do what you would normally do", it also includes this special overload resolution behavior that ignores the implicitly deleted move constructor.
I've already tried to ask this question but I wasn't clear enough. So here is one more try. And I am very sorry for my English ;)
Let's see the code:
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
using namespace std;
struct A {
unique_ptr<int> ref;
void printRef() {
if (ref.get())
cout<<"i="<<*ref<<endl;
else
cout<<"i=NULL"<<endl;
}
A(const int i) : ref(new int(i)) {
cout<<"Constructor with ";
printRef();
}
~A() {
cout<<"Destructor with";
printRef();
}
};
int main()
{
A a[2] = { 0, 1 };
return 0;
}
It can not be compiled because unique_ptr has deleted copying constructor.
Orly?!
This class DOES HAVE an implied moving constructor because unique_ptr has one.
Let's do a test:
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
using namespace std;
struct A {
unique_ptr<int> ref;
void printRef() {
if (ref.get())
cout<<"i="<<*ref<<endl;
else
cout<<"i=NULL"<<endl;
}
A(const int i) : ref(new int(i)) {
cout<<"Constructor with ";
printRef();
}
// Let's add a moving constructor.
A(A&& a) : ref(std::move(a.ref)) {
cout<<"Moving constructor with";
printRef();
}
~A() {
cout<<"Destructor with";
printRef();
}
};
int main()
{
A a[2] = { 0, 1 };
return 0;
}
I've added a moving constructor and now the code can be compiled and executed.
Even if the moving constructor is not used.
The output:
Constructor with i=0
Constructor with i=1
Destructor withi=1
Destructor withi=0
Okay...Let's do one more test and remove the copying constructor (but leave the moving one).
I don't post the code, there only one line has been added:
A(const A& a) = delete;
You should trust me - it works. So the compiler doesn't require a copying constructor.
But it did! (a facepalm should be here)
So what's going on? I see it completely illogical! Or is there some sort of twisted logic I don't see?
Once more:
unique_ptr has a moving constructor and has a deleted copying constructor. Compiler requires copying constructor to be present. But in fact the compiler requires a moving constructor (even if it is not used) and doesn't require a copying (because it could be deleted). And as I see the moving constructor is (should be?) present impliedly.
What's wrong with that?
P.S. One more thing - if I delete the moving constructor the program could not be compiled. So the moving constructor is required, but not the copying one.Why does it require copy-constructor if it's prohibited to use it there?
P.P.S.
Big thanks to juanchopanza's answer! This can be solved by:
A(A&& a) = default;
And also big thanks to Matt McNabb.
As I see it now, the moving constructor is absent because unique_ptr doesn't have a copying one the class has a destructor (and the general rule is that default/copying/moving constructors and destructor could be generated by default only all together). Then the compiler doesn't stop at moving one (why?!) and falls back to copying one. At this point the compiler can't generate it and stops with an error (about the copy constructor) when nothing else can be done.
By the way it you add:
A(A&& a) = delete;
A(const A& a) = default;
It could NOT be compiled with error about 'A::A(A&& a)' deletion, There will be no fall back to copying constructor.
P.P.P.S The last question - why does it stop with error at the COPY constructor but not the MOVE constructor?!
GCC++ 4.7/4.8 says: "error: use of deleted function ‘A::A(const A&)’"
So it stops at copy constructor.
Why?! There should be 'A::A(A&&)'
Ok. Now it seems like a question about move/copy constrcutor choosing rule.
I've created the new more specific question here
This is called copy elision.
The rule in this situation is that a copy/move operation is specified, but the compiler is allowed to optionally elide it as an optimization, even if the copy/move constructor had side-effects.
When copy elision happens, typically the object is created directly in the memory space of the destination; instead of creating a new object and then copy/moving it over to the destination and deleting the first object.
The copy/move constructor still has to actually be present, otherwise we would end up with stupid situations where the code appears to compile, but then fails to compile later when the compiler decides not to do copy-elision. Or the code would work on some compilers and break on other compilers, or if you used different compiler switches.
In your first example you do not declare a copy nor a move constructor. This means that it gets an implicitly-defined copy-constructor.
However, there is a rule that if a class has a user-defined destructor then it does not get an implicitly-defined move constructor. Don't ask me why this rule exists, but it does (see [class.copy]#9 for reference).
Now, the exact wording of the standard is important here. In [class.copy]#13 it says:
A copy/move constructor that is defaulted and not defined as deleted is implicitly defined if it is odr-used (3.2)
[Note: The copy/move constructor is implicitly defined even if the implementation elided its odr-use (3.2, 12.2). —end note
The definition of odr-used is quite complicated, but the gist of it is that if you never attempt to copy the object then it will not try to generate the implicitly-defined copy constructor (and likewise for moving and move).
As T.C. explains on your previous thread though, the act of doing A a[2] = {0, 1}; does specify a copy/move, i.e. the value a[0] must be initialized either by copy or by move, from a temporary A(0). This temporary is able to undergo copy elision, but as I explain earlier, the right constructors must still exist so that the code would work if the compiler decides not to use copy elision in this case.
Since your class does not have a move constructor here, it cannot be moved. But the attempt to bind the temporary to a constructor of A still succeeds because there is a copy-constructor defined (albeit implicitly-defined). At that point, odr-use happens and it attempts to generate the copy-constructor and fails due to the unique_ptr.
In your second example, you provide a move-constructor but no copy-constructor. There is still an implicitly-declared copy-constructor which is not generated until it is odr-used, as before.
But the rules of overload resolution say that if a copy and a move are both possible, then the move constructor is used. So it does not odr-use the copy-constructor in this case and everything is fine.
In the third example, again the move-constructor wins overload resolution so it does not matter what how the copy-constructor is defined.
I think you are asking why this
A a[2] = { 0, 1 };
fails to compile, while you would expect it to compile because A may have a move constructor. But it doesn't.
The reason is that A has a member that is not copyable, so its own copy constructor is deleted, and this counts as a user declared copy constructor has a user-declared destructor.
This in turn means A has no implicitly declared move constructor. You have to enable move construction, which you can do by defaulting the constructor:
A(A&&) = default;
To check whether a class is move constructible, you can use is_move_constructible, from the type_traits header:
std::cout << std::boolalpha;
std::cout << std::is_move_constructible<A>::value << std::endl;
This outputs false in your case.
The twisted logic is that you are supposed to write programs at a higher abstraction level. If an object has a copy constructor it can be copied, otherwise it cannot. If you tell the compiler this object shall not be copied it will obey you and not cheat. Once you tell it that it can be copied the compiler will try to make the copy as fast as possible, usually by avoiding the copy constructor.
As for the move constructor: It is an optimization. It tends to be faster to move an object from one place to another than to make an exact copy and destroy the old one. This is what move constructors are for. If there is no move constructor the move can still be done with the old fashioned copy and destroy method.
I'm struggling to basically understand how the assignment operator works, or perhaps I haven't defined the right one, or I've come upon some C++ gotcha; not sure.
I have a class like this:
class A
{
public:
A();
A(const A &rhs);
//some other ctors
//and functions here
A& operator=(A rhs);
A create_half();
double* m_data;
};
Here is the body of create_half; it appears to be relevant to the situation
A A::create_half(){
//construct a new A
A mya;
//do stuff to mya here,
//and then return the new A
return mya;
}
Here is the copy constructor, at least a shortened version of it. This is the code that is skipped due to standard -- at least if this is what's truly going on.
A::A(const A& rhs):
m_data(new double[1])
{
*m_data = *(rhs.m_data);
//or something similar, essentially
//a deep copy
}
Then in the code I try to write something like this
A a_instance;
//do stuff to a_instance
//this doesn't call any = operator or
//copy c-tor I try to define, why?
A b_instance = A.create_half();
//but this works fine
//the = operator I have def'd is called
A b_instance;
b_instance = A.create_half();
The line that doesn't work as I want it to seems to do a default copy (ie, b_instance.m_data is set to a_instance.m_data) even though neither my copy c-tor now my assignment operator contain this operation.
For the problematic line, I'm not able to step into the assignment operator; that's why I think I have the wrong signature, or something similar.
Any ideas?
EDIT: Sorry for misleading you guys -- no class B exists.
EDIT AGAIN: I've accepted an answer, and I've added some detail to the snippets above to try to elucidate what is really going on.
Since the instance of A created by create_half() isn't bound to a reference, the standard allows elision of the copy constructor, which, critically, allocates new memory for b_instance, and does the deep copy.
That seems pretty bold, to me! I don't think I'll see an answer, since this edit is sometime after the initial posting, but what would be a better design pattern here?
This
A a_instance();
is a function declaration that has no parameters and has return type A.
This statement
B b_instance = A.create_half();
syntactically is invalid. At least it should be written as
B b_instance = A().create_half();
In this statement an object of type B is created from an object of type A. I can say nothing whether this statement is correct because you did not show the class B definition.
This statement is also invalid
b_instance = A.create_half();
There must be
b_instance = A().create_half();
There is used indeed an assignment operator (maybe even the copy assignment operator provided that class B has a conversion constructor or class A has a conversion function) but for class B. You did not show how you defined class B. So again I can say nothing what is wrong with this assignment operator.
As for the signature of the copy assignment operator of class A
A& operator=(A rhs);
then it is valid though it would be better if you declared it as
A& operator=( const A &rhs );
EDIT: As you changed your original post then I need to append my message relative to your question in the following code snippet
//this doesn't call any = operator or
//copy c-tor I try to define, why?
A b_instance = A.create_half();
According to the C++ Standard
31 When certain criteria are met, an implementation is allowed to omit
the copy/move construction of a class object, even if the constructor
selected for the copy/move operation and/or the destructor for the
object have side effects. In such cases, the implementation treats the
source and target of the omitted copy/move operation as simply two
different ways of referring to the same object, and the destruction of
that object occurs at the later of the times when the two objects
would have been destroyed without the optimization.
One of the "certin criteria" is
— when a temporary class object that has not been bound to a reference
(12.2) would be copied/moved to a class object with the same
cv-unqualified type, the copy/move operation can be omitted by
constructing the temporary object directly into the target of the
omitted copy/move
In trying to understand this answer, it seems that new can be classified as a "copy constructor" and delete sometimes as a "trivial destructor".
I can find next to nothing (that I can quickly grasp) on "trivial assignment" except that it is "trivial if it is implicitly declared, if its class has no virtual member functions or virtual base classes, and if its direct base classes and embedded objects have a trivial assignment operator".
I found a question on yahoo about implicit declaration, but to my surprise, it did not answer.
My brain hurts after reading about virtual member functions.
Besides, I'm a monkey-see-monkey-do programmer, so the only way I'm going to get this is to see it in action. Please explain with respect to the above definition of "trivial" by using the example provided in the first answer, that std::string has a trivial assignment operator by using new or delete or for a less apparent reason.
New can use a copy constructor, and delete uses a destructor. The copy constructor or destructor may be trivial.
That being said, there is a STRONG chance that you will not need to worry about whether a constructor/destructor is trivial for a long time.
new calls a constructor to construct the object. If the one argument to the constructor of type T is an instance of T that is a copy constructor: you are trying to construct an instance of one object from another
class Foo
{
public:
Foo(int x) // not a copy constructor
: mX(x)
{ }
Foo(const Foo& inOther) // copy constructor
: mX(inOther.mX)
{ }
private:
int mX;
};
class Bar
{
public:
Bar(int x)
: mX(x)
{ }
// no copy constructor specified.. C++ will build an implicit one for you
private:
int mX;
}
};
Foo a(1); // uses the first constructor (not a copy)
Foo b(a); // uses a copy constructor
Foo c = a; // copy constructor
Foo* d = new Foo(1); // construct a new instance of Foo (not a copy)
Foo* e = new Foo(a); // copy
Bar f(1); // normal constructor
Bar g(f); // IMPLICIT copy constructor
If your class does not have a copy constructor, like Bar, C++ usually provides you one (always provides you one unless you have an explicit constructor or delete the copy constructor with a C++11 keyword). This copy constructor is very straightforward: it copies each member of your class.
A trivial copy constructor is special. A trivial copy constructor can only be created when the copy constructor is implicitly created for you by the compiler and:
All members of your class are trivially copyable
You do not have any virtual methods or virtual base classes
All of your base classes are trivially copyable.
If you specify a constructor in your class, it is not trivial, by definition. Foo does not have a trivial copy constructor because it is user defined. Bar has an implicit copy constructor because it is not user defined. The implicit copy constructor IS trivial, because copying mX is trivial (copying ints is trivial).
Similar rules go for destructors. A trivial destructor follows the same rules, and delete
WHat does it do for you? The spec lists a few key behaviors about trivial constructors/destructors. In particular, there's a list of things you can do if you have a trivial constructor and destructor that are illegal otherwise. However, they are all very nuanced, and unimportant to 99.9% of C++ code development. They all deal with situations where you can get away with not constructing or destructing an object.
For example, if I have a union:
union MyUnion {
int x;
ClassA y;
ClassB z;
}
If y and z have trivial constructors and destructors, C+ will write a copy constructor for that union for me. If one of them has a non-trivial constructor/destructor, I have to write the copy constructor for the union myself.
Another thing you can do is fast destruction of an array. Usually, when you delete an array, you have to make sure to call the destructor on every item. If you can prove that the destructor of each element is trivial, then you are allowed to skip destroying the elements, and just free the memory. std::vector does this under the hood (so you don't have to)
Does std::is_move_constructible<T>::value == true imply that T has a usable move constructor?
If so, what is the default behaviour of it?
Consider the following case:
struct foo {
int* ptr;
};
int main() {
{
std::cout << std::is_move_constructible<foo>::value << '\n';
foo f;
f.ptr = (int*)12;
foo f2(std::move(f));
std::cout << f.ptr << ' ' << f2.ptr << '\n';
}
return 0;
}
and the output is:
1
0000000C 0000000C
I thought that f.ptr should be nullptr.
So in this case,
Is f2 move constructed ?
If so, shouldn't the rvalue be invalidated?
How can I know if instances of a class can be properly move-constructed (invalidate the old one)?
(I'm using VS11.)
Update
The default behaviour of move constructor is same as a copy constructor, is it correct?
If it's true,
We always expect a move ctor to steal the resources of the moved-from object, while the default one does not behave as expected, so what's the point of having a default move ctor?
How can I know if a class has a custom move constructor (which can be guaranteed to behave properly)?
It seems that foo f2(std::move(f)); calls the copy ctor when I declared one, see:
struct foo {
int* ptr;
foo() {}
foo(const foo& other) {
std::cout << "copy constructed\n";
}
};
int main() {
{
std::cout << std::is_move_constructible<foo>::value << '\n';
foo f;
foo f2(std::move(f));
}
system("pause");
return 0;
}
Now the output is:
1
copy constructed
If foo has a move constructor, then wouldn't foo f2(std::move(f)) call it?
So now my questions is:
How to know if a class has a move ctor, and if it has one, how can I explicitly call it?
What I'm trying to do is…
template<typename T, bool has_move_ctor>
struct MoveAux;
template<typename T>
struct MoveAux<T, true> {
static void doMove(T* dest, T* src) {
new(dest) T(std::move(*src)); //move ctor
}
};
template<typename T>
struct MoveAux<T, false> {
static void doMove(T* dest, T* src) {
new(dest) T(*src); //copy ctor
src->~T();
}
};
template<typename T>
inline doMove(T* dest, T* src) {
MoveAux<T,/*a trait*/>::doMove(dest, src);
}
So I thought std::is_move_constructible<T>::value can be passed to the template, while now I see that this trait only cares if T t(T()) is a valid expression, it may call T::T(const T&).
Now assume that T is a custom class, then I want the above templates to behave like:
If I don't declare a move ctor, I want that template method calls the MoveAux<T,false>::doMove.
If I declared one, I need it calls to MoveAux<T,true>::doMove.
Is it possible to make this work?
does std::is_move_constructible<T>::value == true implies that T has a usable move constructor?
Either a move constructor or a copy constructor. Remember that the operation of copy construction satisfies all the requirements that are placed upon the operation move construction, and some more.
In Standard terms, a MoveConstructible object is one for which the evaluation of the expression:
T u = rv;
makes u equivalent to the value of rv before the construction; the state of rv after being moved-from is unspecified. But since it is unspecified, this means the state could even be identical to the one rv had before being moved from: In other words, u could be a copy of rv.
In fact, the Standard defines the CopyConstructible concept to be a refinement of the MoveConstructible concept (so everything which is CopyConstructible is also MoveConstructible, but not vice versa).
if so, what is the default behaviour of it?
The behavior of an implicitly generated move constructor is to perform a member-wise move of the data members of the type for which it is generated.
Per Parahgraph 12.8/15 of the C++11 Standard:
The implicitly-defined copy/move constructor for a non-union class X performs a memberwise copy/move
of its bases and members. [ Note: brace-or-equal-initializers of non-static data members are ignored. See
also the example in 12.6.2. —end note ]
Moreover:
1 - is f2 move constructed ?
Yes.
2 - if so, shouldn't the rvalue be invalidated?
Moving a pointer is the same as copying it. So no invalidation is going on, neither should it be going on. If you want a move constructor that leaves the moved-from object in a particular state (i.e. sets a pointer data member to nullptr), you have to write your own - or delegate this responsibility to some smart pointer class such as std::unique_ptr.
Notice, that the word "invalidated" is not quite correct here. Move constructors (as well as move assignment operators) are meant to leave the moved-from object in a valid (yet unspecified) state.
In other words, the class invariant needs to be respected - and it should be possible to invoke on a moved-from objects operations that do not have any precondition on its state (usually, destruction and assignment).
does std::is_move_constructible::value == true implies that T has a usable move constructor?
No. It states that you can take an rvalue expression of the object type and construct an object from it. Whether this uses the move constructor or the copy constructor is not relevant to this trait.
is f2 move constructed ?
Yes.
if so, shouldn't the rvalue be invalidated?
No. That's not how movement works.
how can I know if instances of a class can be properly move-constructed(invalidate the old one)?
That is not any definition of "properly move-constructed" that exists. If you want to "invalidate the old one", then you will have to do that yourself.
Move construction generally guarantees nothing about the state of the old object. It will be in a valid but undefined state. Such state very much can be "the same as it was before". Move construction for a pointer is the same as copying the pointer.
If you want to "invalidate" after a move, then you need to write your own move constructor that explicitly does that.
(I'm using VS11)
Then you have no compiler-generated move constructors at all. Not that it would matter, since the move and copy constructors for pointers both do the same thing.
the default behaviour of move constructor is same as a copy
constructor, is it correct? if it's true
No. It's wrong. It's true only for primitives. It's similar to that of copy constructor.
The default generated copy constructor calls the copy constructor of all its members in the declared order
But The default generated move constructor calls the move constructor of all its members in the declared order
Now the next question is, what is the copy/move constructor of the primitives ints floats pointers do?
Answer: They just copy the values (both copy and move constructor)
Note that Visual Studio 2012 / VC++11 does not support compiler generated move constructors; in fact, consider this quote from "C++11 Features in Visual C++ 11" blog post (emphasis mine):
Rvalue references v3.0 adds new rules to automatically generate move
constructors and move assignment operators under certain conditions.
This will not be implemented in VC11, which will continue to follow
VC10's behavior of never automatically generating move
constructors/move assignment operators.
With raw pointers, you have to define move constructors by yourself, manually clearing the old "moved-from" pointer:
class Foo
{
public:
// Move constructor
Foo(Foo&& other)
: m_ptr(other.m_ptr) // copy pointer value
{
// Clear out old "moved-from" pointer, to avoid dangling references
other.m_ptr = nullptr;
}
private:
int* m_ptr;
};
Instead, if you use a smart pointer like std::unique_ptr, move constructor is properly defined, and you can just call std::move:
class Foo
{
public:
// Move constructor
Foo(Foo&& other)
: m_ptr(std::move(other.m_ptr)) // move from other,
// old pointer automatically cleared
{
}
private:
std::unique_ptr<int> m_ptr;
};
With automatically generated move constructors, you don't have to define a custom move constructor explicitly, if member-wise move is OK for you.
n3376 12.8/15
The implicitly-defined copy/move constructor for a non-union class X performs a memberwise copy/move
of its bases and members.
Each base or non-static data
member is copied/moved in the manner appropriate to its type:
— if the member is an array, each element is direct-initialized with the corresponding subobject of x;
— if a member m has rvalue reference type T&&, it is direct-initialized with static_cast(x.m);
— otherwise, the base or member is direct-initialized with the corresponding base or member of x.
if foo has a move constructor, then wouldn't foo f2(std::move(f)) calls it?
You do not get the default move constructor when you supply your copy constructor. Add following line to get it ( and notice the change ).
foo(foo&& ifm)=default;