Copy constructor is called instead of move constructor - why? - c++

Question

I have this code, taken from here by the way http://www.cplusplus.com/doc/tutorial/classes2/
// move constructor/assignment
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <utility>
using namespace std;
class Example6
{
string* ptr;
public:
Example6(const string& str) :
ptr(new string(str))
{
cout << "DONT MOVE " << '\n';
}
~Example6()
{
delete ptr;
}
// move constructor
Example6(Example6&& x) :
ptr(x.ptr)
{
cout << "MOVE " << '\n';
x.ptr = nullptr;
}
// move assignment
Example6& operator=(Example6&& x)
{
delete ptr;
ptr = x.ptr;
x.ptr = nullptr;
return *this;
}
// access content:
const string& content() const
{
return *ptr;
}
// addition:
Example6 operator+(const Example6& rhs)
{
return Example6(content() + rhs.content());
}
};
int main()
{
Example6 foo("Exam");
Example6 bar = Example6("ple"); // move-construction
foo = foo + bar; // move-assignment
cout << "foo's content: " << foo.content() << '\n';
return 0;
}
I only added output in constructor to see which is being called. To my surprise it is always the first one, copy constructor. Why does it happen? I did some research and found some info about elision. Is it somehow possible to prevent it and always call move constructor?
Also, as a side note, as I said this code is from cplusplus.com. However, I read about move semantics in some other places and I wonder if this move constructor here is done right. Shouldn't it call
ptr(move(x.ptr))
instead of just
ptr(x.ptr)
The way I understand this, if we use the second option, then we are calling copy constructor of string, instead of move, because x is rvalue reference that has a name, so it is really lvalue and we need to use move to cast it to be rvalue. Do i miss something, or is it really tutorial's mistake?
Btw, adding move doesn't solve my first problem.

Answer 1

So anything with a name is an lvalue.
An rvalue reference with a name is an lvalue.
An rvalue reference will bind to rvalues, but it itself is an lvalue.
So x in ptr(x.ptr) is an rvalue reference, but it has a name, so it is an lvalue.
To treat it as an rvalue, you need to do ptr( std::move(x).ptr ).
Of course, this is mostly useless, as moving a ptr does nothing as ptr is a dumb raw pointer.
You should be following the rule of 0 here.
class Example6 {
std::unique_ptr<string> ptr;
public:
Example6 (string str) : ptr(std::make_unique<string>(std::move(str))) {cout << "DONT MOVE " << '\n';}
Example6():Example6("") {}
~Example6 () = default;
// move constructor
Example6 (Example6&& x) = default;
// move assignment
Example6& operator= (Example6&& x) = default;
// access content:
const string& content() const {
if (!ptr) *this=Example6{};
return *ptr;
}
// addition:
Example6 operator+(const Example6& rhs) {
return Example6(content()+rhs.content());
}
};
because business logic and lifetime management don't belong intermixed in the same class.
While we are at it:
// addition:
Example6& operator+=(const Example6& rhs) & {
if (!ptr) *this = Example6{};
*ptr += rhs.content();
return *this;
}
// addition:
friend Example6 operator+(Example6 lhs, const Example6& rhs) {
lhs += rhs;
return lhs;
}

Answer 2

Copy constructor is called ... - why?
The premise of your question is faulty: The copy constructor is not called. In fact, the class is not copyable.
The first constructor is a converting constructor from std::string. The converting constructor is called because Example6 objects are initialised with a string argument. Once in each of these expressions:
Example6 foo("Exam")
Example6("ple")
Example6(content() + rhs.content()
... instead of move constructor
There are a few copy-initialisations by move in the program. However, all of them can be elided by the compiler.
Is it somehow possible to prevent it and always call move constructor?
There are a few mistakes that can prevent copy elision. For example, if you wrote the addition operator like this:
return std::move(Example6(content()+rhs.content()));
The compiler would fail to elide the move and probably tell you about it if you're lucky:
warning: moving a temporary object prevents copy elision
Shouldn't it call
ptr(move(x.ptr))
instead of just
ptr(x.ptr)
There's no need. Moving a pointer is exactly the same as copying a pointer. Same holds for all fundamental types.
The way I understand this, if we use the second option, then we are calling copy constructor of string, instead of move
ptr is not a string. It is a pointer to a string. Copying a pointer does nothing to the pointed object.
PS. The example program is quite bad quality. There should never be owning bare pointers in C++.

Answer 3

I can say your class does not have a copy constructor.
Because copy ctor parameter have to be const and reference
class Example6{
public:
Example6(const Example6 &r);
};