When Does Move Constructor get called? - c++

Question

I'm confused about when a move constructor gets called vs a copy constructor.
I've read the following sources:
Move constructor is not getting called in C++0x
Move semantics and rvalue references in C++11
msdn
All of these sources are either overcomplicated(I just want a simple example) or only show how to write a move constructor, but not how to call it. Ive written a simple problem to be more specific:
const class noConstruct{}NoConstruct;
class a
{
private:
int *Array;
public:
a();
a(noConstruct);
a(const a&);
a& operator=(const a&);
a(a&&);
a& operator=(a&&);
~a();
};
a::a()
{
Array=new int[5]{1,2,3,4,5};
}
a::a(noConstruct Parameter)
{
Array=nullptr;
}
a::a(const a& Old): Array(Old.Array)
{
}
a& a::operator=(const a&Old)
{
delete[] Array;
Array=new int[5];
for (int i=0;i!=5;i++)
{
Array[i]=Old.Array[i];
}
return *this;
}
a::a(a&&Old)
{
Array=Old.Array;
Old.Array=nullptr;
}
a& a::operator=(a&&Old)
{
Array=Old.Array;
Old.Array=nullptr;
return *this;
}
a::~a()
{
delete[] Array;
}
int main()
{
a A(NoConstruct),B(NoConstruct),C;
A=C;
B=C;
}
currently A,B,and C all have different pointer values. I would like A to have a new pointer, B to have C's old pointer, and C to have a null pointer.
somewhat off topic, but If one could suggest a documentation where i could learn about these new features in detail i would be grateful and would probably not need to ask many more questions.

Answer 1

A move constructor is called:
when an object initializer is std::move(something)
when an object initializer is std::forward<T>(something) and T is not an lvalue reference type (useful in template programming for "perfect forwarding")
when an object initializer is a temporary and the compiler doesn't eliminate the copy/move entirely
when returning a function-local class object by value and the compiler doesn't eliminate the copy/move entirely
when throwing a function-local class object and the compiler doesn't eliminate the copy/move entirely
This is not a complete list. Note that an "object initializer" can be a function argument, if the parameter has a class type (not reference).
a RetByValue() {
a obj;
return obj; // Might call move ctor, or no ctor.
}
void TakeByValue(a);
int main() {
a a1;
a a2 = a1; // copy ctor
a a3 = std::move(a1); // move ctor
TakeByValue(std::move(a2)); // Might call move ctor, or no ctor.
a a4 = RetByValue(); // Might call move ctor, or no ctor.
a1 = RetByValue(); // Calls move assignment, a::operator=(a&&)
}

Answer 2

First of all, your copy constructor is broken. Both the copied from and copied to objects will point to the same Array and will both try to delete[] it when they go out of scope, resulting in undefined behavior. To fix it, make a copy of the array.
a::a(const a& Old): Array(new int[5])
{
for( size_t i = 0; i < 5; ++i ) {
Array[i] = Old.Array[i];
}
}
Now, move assignment is not being performed as you want it to be, because both assignment statements are assigning from lvalues, instead of using rvalues. For moves to be performed, you must be moving from an rvalue, or it must be a context where an lvalue can be considered to be an rvalue (such as the return statement of a function).
To get the desired effect use std::move to create an rvalue reference.
A=C; // A will now contain a copy of C
B=std::move(C); // Calls the move assignment operator

Answer 3

Remember that copy elision could occur. If you disable it by passing the -fno-elide-constructors flag to the compiler your constructor might get executed.
You can read about it here: https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/copy-elision-in-c/

Answer 4

Answers above do not give a 'natural' example when a move constructor is called. I found this way to call move constructor without std::move (and without suppressing copy elision by -fno-elide-constructors):
a foo(a a0) {
return a0; // move ctor is called
}
a a1 = foo(a());