In the following example, why doesn't the move constructor get called in the construction of 'copy' inside fun, even though the 'src' argument of 'fun' is explicitly a rvalue reference and is only used in that construction?
struct Toy {
int data;
Toy(): data(0)
{
log("Constructed");
}
Toy(Toy const& src): data(src.data)
{
log("Copy-constructed");
}
Toy(Toy&& src): data(src.data)
{
log("Move-constructed");
}
};
Toy fun(Toy&& src)
{
Toy copy(src);
copy.data = 777;
return copy;
}
Toy toy(fun(Toy())); // LOG: Constructed Copy-constructed
While Bob && b is an rvalue reference, all named use of data after construction is using it as an lvalue.
So Bob&& b will only bind to rvalues, but when you use it it will not move.
The only ways to get an rvalue reference are:
A value without a name, such as a temporary return value or result of a cast.
Use of a local value variable in a simple return x; statement.
Explicitly casting to an rvalue, such as with std::move or std::forward.
This prevents data from being silently moved from on one line and then used on the next. It can help to think of rvalue as being 'I the programmer say this is not needed after this expression' at use, and 'only take things that are not needed afterwards' in function parameters. The temporary/return exceptions above are two spots the compiler can relatively safely guarantee this itself.
Finally, note that universal references (auto&& and T&&) look like rvalue references but sometimes are not.
Related
Here is the code:
class SomeType {
public:
SomeType() {}
~SomeType() {}
std::string xxx;
}
bool funtion_ab() {
SomeType(); // This is a right val;
// The right val destructs here when I test the code. I want to make sure that it would always destructs here.
int a = 0, b = 10;
....// other code
return true;
}
Please tell me if you know the truth. Thank you!
What you have is called a temporary object. From §6.7.7,
Temporary objects are created
when a prvalue is converted to an xvalue
or, more specifically,
[Note 3: Temporary objects are materialized:
...
when a prvalue that has type other than cv void appears as a discarded-value expression ([expr.context]).
— end note]
and, on the lifetime, the same section has this to say
Temporary objects are destroyed as the last step in evaluating the full-expression ([intro.execution]) that (lexically) contains the point where they were created.
You can read more about the expression semantics, but in your case "full-expression" is fairly unambiguous.
SomeType();
The "full-expression" containing your constructor call is... the constructor call itself. So the destructor will be called immediately after evaluating the constructor. There are some exceptions to this rule (such as if the temporary object is thrown as an exception or is bound as a reference), but none of those apply here.
As noted in the comments, compilers are free to inline your constructor and destructor calls and then are free to notice that they do nothing and omit them entirely. Optimizers can do fun stuff with your code, provided it doesn't change the semantics. But a strict reading of the standard states that the destructor is called exactly where you suggested.
Ok, I am starting to get the jist of rvalue references (I think). I have this code snippet that I was writing:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
std::string get_string()
{
std::string str{"here is your string\n"};
return std::move(str); // <----- cast here?
}
int main ()
{
std::string my_string = std::move(get_string()); // <----- or cast here?
std::cout << my_string;
return 0;
}
So I have a simple example where I have a function that returns a copy of a string. I have read that its bad (and got the core-dumps to prove it!) to return any reference to a local temp variable so I have discounted trying that.
In the assignment in main() I don't want to copy-construct that string I want to move-construct/assign the string to avoid copying the string too much.
Q1: I return a "copy" of the temp var in get_string() - but I have cast the return value to rvalue-red. Is that pointless or is that doing anything useful?
Q2: Assuming Q1's answer is I don't need to do that. Then am I moving the fresh copy of the temp variable into my_string, or am I moving directly the temp variable str into my_string.
Q3: what is the minimum number of copies that you need in order to get a string return value stored into an "external" (in my case in main()) variable, and how do you do that (if I am not already achieving it)?
I return a "copy" of the temp var in get_string() - but I have cast the return value to rvalue-red. Is that pointless or is that doing anything useful?
You don't have to use std::move in that situation, as local variables returned by value are "implicitly moved" for you. There's a special rule in the Standard for this. In this case, your move is pessimizing as it can prevent RVO (clang warns on this).
Q2: Assuming Q1's answer is I don't need to do that. Then am I moving the fresh copy of the temp variable into my_string, or am I moving directly the temp variable str into my_string.
You don't need to std::move the result of calling get_string(). get_string() is a prvalue, which means that the move constructor of my_string will automatically be called (pre-C++17). In C++17 and above, mandatory copy elision will ensure that no moves/copies happen (with prvalues).
Q3: what is the minimum number of copies that you need in order to get a string return value stored into an "external" (in my case in main()) variable, and how do you do that (if I am not already achieving it)?
Depends on the Standard and on whether or not RVO takes place. If RVO takes place, you will have 0 copies and 0 moves. If you're targeting C++17 and initializing from a prvalue, you are guaranteed to have 0 copies and 0 moves. If neither take place, you'll probably have a single move - I don't see why any copy should occur here.
You do not need to use std::move on the return value which is a local variable. The compiler does that for you:
If expression is an lvalue expression that is the (possibly parenthesized) name of an automatic storage duration object declared in the body or as a parameter of the innermost enclosing function or lambda expression, then overload resolution to select the constructor to use for initialization of the returned value is performed twice: first as if expression were an rvalue expression (thus it may select the move constructor), and if no suitable conversion is available, or if the type of the first parameter of the selected constructor is not an rvalue reference to the object's type (possibly cv-qualified), overload resolution is performed a second time, with expression considered as an lvalue (so it may select the copy constructor taking a reference to non-const).
Universal references as parameter or return type
I read a few articles about universal references but I still don't understand in which cases I might need to use this as a parameter type besides the move constructor. Could someone enlighten me?
void Foo(Bar&& x);
Bar&& Foo();
Under which circumstances would I ever want to have this which I couldn't solve with a simple Bar& to move something?
When to use std::move
Could someone explain me when an explicit std::move is necessary (for parameters and return types) under which circumstances I can expect that the compiler uses it automatically during the optimization phase? For example
struct A { A(A&& src) ... };
A Foo()
{
A a;
...
return a;
}
In this case I might benefit from RVO, so should I even ever consider using std::move for a result? Thanks a lot!
Universal references
The example you've provided doesn't actually use universal references, those are just r-value references. Syntactically, the universal reference is an r-value reference to a parameter of a deduce templated type:
template <typename Bar>
void foo(Bar &&bar);
This is actually different then a regular r-value reference and it is used to solve a perfect forwarding problem. But I assume this isn't what your question is about.
R-value references
In most cases when you want to move the value to or from the function you can simply do it by value:
void foo(Bar b);
...
Bar somebar;
foo(std::move(somebar)); //function argument is move-constructed
/**************************************************************/
Bar foo()
{
Bar somebar;
return somebar; //return value is move-constructed
}
Doing this using l-value reference is actually incorrect:
void foo(Bar &b)
{
Bar somebar = std::move(b); //you "stole" passed value
}
...
Bar somebar;
foo(somebar); //but the caller didn't intend to move his value
Also returning any reference to a local variable is wrong.
The only reason one would use r-value reference instead of passing by value is to allow moving the value without actually moving it one extra time:
Bar &&Foo::foo()
{
return memberBar;
}
...
Foo f;
Bar b = f.foo(); //"b" will be move-constructed
...
f.foo().doBar(); //returned "Bar" value is just used and not moved at all
When to use std::move
You need to use std::move every time you want to move a variable even if it's already an r-value reference:
Foo::Foo(Bar &&bar)
: memberBar(std::move(bar)) //still need to move explicitly!
{
}
You don't need to use std::move when:
Returning a local variable by value
Passing a temporary to a function, e.g. foo(Bar())
Passing non-movable types (those without move-constructor) including primitive types
A common mistake:
Bar *bar = new Bar();
foo(std::move(bar)); //not needed! nothing to move since the pointer is passed and not the object itself
However when using a conditional operator:
Bar foo()
{
Bar somebar;
Bar otherbar;
return std::move(true ? somebar : otherbar); //need to move explicitly!
}
I can't understand the function move in c++11.
From here, I got things below:
Although note that -in the standard library- moving implies that the
moved-from object is left in a valid but unspecified state. Which
means that, after such an operation, the value of the moved-from
object should only be destroyed or assigned a new value; accessing it
otherwise yields an unspecified value.
In my opinion, after move(), the moved-from object has been "clear". However, I've done a test below:
std::string str = "abcd";
std::move(str);
std::cout<<str;
I got abcd on my screen.
So has the str been destroyed? If so, I could get abcd because I'm just lucky? Or I misunderstood the function move?
Besides, when I read C++ Primer, I got such a code:
class Base{/* ... */};
class D: public Base{
public:
D(D&& d): Base(std::move(d)){/* use d to initialize the members of D */}
};
I'm confused now. If the function move will clear the object, the parameter d will be clear, how could we "use d to initialize the members of D"?
std::move doesn't actually do anything. It's roughly analogous to a cast expression, in that the return value is the original object, but treated differently.
More precisely, std::move returns the object in a form which is amenable to its resources being 'stolen' for some other purpose. The original object remains valid, more or less (you're only supposed to do certain special things to it, though that's primarily a matter of convention and not necessarily applicable to non-standard-library objects), but the stolen-away resources no longer belong to it, and generally won't be referenced by it any more.
But! std::move doesn't, itself, do the stealing. It just sets things up for stealing to be allowed. Since you're not doing anything with the result, let alone something which could take advantage of the opportunity, nothing gets stolen.
std::move doesn’t move anything. std::move is merely a function template that perform casts. std::move unconditionally casts its argument to an rvalue,
std::move(str);
With this expression you are just doing type cast from lvalue to rvalue.
small modification in program to understand better.
std::string str = "abcd";
std::string str1 = std::move(str);
std::cout<<str<<std::endl;
std::cout<<str1<<std::endl;
str lvalue typecast to rvalue by std::move, std::string = std::move(str); =>this expression call the string move constructor where actual stealing of resources take placed. str resources(abcd) are steeled and printed empty string.
Here is sample implementation of move function. Please note that it is not complete implementation of standard library.
template<typename T> // C++14; still in
decltype(auto) move(T&& param) // namespace std
{
using ReturnType = remove_reference_t<T>&&;
return static_cast<ReturnType>(param);
}
Applying std::move to an object tells the compiler that the object is eligible to be moved from. It cast to the rvalue.
class Base{/* ... */};
class D: public Base{
public:
D(D&& d): Base(std::move(d)){/* use d to initialize the members of D */}
};
Base(std::move(d)) it will do up-casting only move the base class part only.
Here one more interesting thing to learn for you. If you do not invoke base class destructor with std::move like D(D&& d): Base(d) then d will be considered as lvalue and copy constructor of Base class involved instead of move constructor. Refer for more detail Move constructor on derived object
It is my understanding that move semantics can use move-constructors to elide what would otherwise be a copy. For example, a function returning a (perhaps) large data structure can now return by value, and the move constructor will be used to avoid a copy.
My question is this: is the compiler required to not copy when this is possible? It doesn't seem to be the case. In that case, wouldn't the following code have "implementation-defined" semantics?
static const int INVALID_HANDLE = 0xFFFFFFFF;
class HandleHolder {
int m_handle;
public:
explicit HandleHolder(int handle) : m_handle(handle) {}
HandleHolder(HandleHolder& hh) {
m_handle = hh.m_handle;
}
HandleHolder(HandleHolder&& hh) : m_handle(INVALID_HANDLE) {
swap(m_handle, hh.m_handle);
}
~HandleHolder() noexcept {
if (m_handle != INVALID_HANDLE) {
destroy_the_handle_object(m_handle);
}
}
};
Say then we make a function:
HandleHolder make_hh(int handle) { return HandleHolder(handle); }
Which constructor is called? I would expect the move constructor, but am I guaranteed the move constructor?
I'm aware this is a silly example and that -- for example -- the copy constructor of this object should be deleted because there is no way to use it safely otherwise, but the semantics are simple enough that I wouldn't think something like this would be implementation-defined.
Yes, of course. There's nothing implementation-defined about it.
If there is a move constructor and it can be used, and it is a choice between a move constructor and a copy constructor, the move constructor will be invoked. That is a guarantee.
[C++11: 13.3.3.2/3]: [..] Standard conversion sequence S1 is a better conversion sequence than standard conversion sequence S2 if:
[..]
S1 and S2 are reference bindings (8.5.3) and neither refers to an implicit object parameter of a non-static member function declared without a ref-qualifier, and S1 binds an rvalue reference to an rvalue and S2 binds an lvalue reference.
[..]
I think your confusion stems from misuse of the term "elide". The compiler may elide copies/moves and replace them with nothingness — with in-place construction that bypasses the invocation of a constructor altogether. Copy elision never results in a move, and move elision never results in a copy. Either the object "transferral" happens or it does not.
You could sort of argue that your program has "implementation-defined" semantics in the sense that you don't know whether copies/moves will be elided until the program has been compiled, and because such elision is allowed to modify side-effects (such as console output). But we don't tend to think of it that way.
Regardless, this does not affect which of the copy and move constructors will be invoked if either are to be.
Your example is further flawed because only your move constructor can be invoked: your copy constructor takes a ref-to-non-const which can't be bound through an rvalue initialiser.