I use VS11 and use following:
class ContextWrapper
{
public:
ContextWrapper()
{
} //it should be defaulted I *guess* in order to have automatic move constructor ?
// no support in VS11 for that now
Context* GetContext()
{
return this->context.get();
}
void SetContext(std::unique_ptr<Context> context)
{
this->context = std::move(context);
}
//ContextWrapper(ContextWrapper&& other): context(std::move(other.context))
//{
//} // I would like this to be generated by the compiler
private:
ContextWrapper(const ContextWrapper&);
ContextWrapper& operator= (const ContextWrapper&);
std::unique_ptr<Context> context;
};
I would like this class to have generated move constructor/assignment. Is the fact that I don't have a trivial constructor the reason I don't get move ? Or there are other factors that influence this ?
A move constructor enables the resources owned by an rvalue object to be moved into an lvalue without copying. For more information about move semantics, see Rvalue Reference Declarator: &&. This topic builds upon the following C++ class, MemoryBlock , which manages a memory buffer.
Move constructor moves the resources in the heap, i.e., unlike copy constructors which copy the data of the existing object and assigning it to the new object move constructor just makes the pointer of the declared object to point to the data of temporary object and nulls out the pointer of the temporary objects.
std::move is used to indicate that an object t may be "moved from", i.e. allowing the efficient transfer of resources from t to another object. In particular, std::move produces an xvalue expression that identifies its argument t . It is exactly equivalent to a static_cast to an rvalue reference type.
noexcept is nice for two reasons: The compiler can optimize a little better because it doesn't need to emit any code for unwinding a call stack in case of an exception, and. It leads to incredible performance differences at runtime for std::vector (and other containers, too)
This part of C++11 is unfortunately in flux. And whatever the standard is going to say, VC11 couldn't possibly implement it yet. So for today, I don't believe you'll be able to count on generated move members.
However, this is a good question and I wanted to get a good answer out on it.
In general, the compiler should generate move members if you have no user-declared copy members nor destructor. = default
and = delete
counts as user-declared. If you declare one move member (e.g. move constructor), the other will not be implicitly generated.
Unfortunately C++11 goes on to say that sometimes the move members are implicitly deleted when declared with =default
, and sometimes their generation depends upon whether the bases and members have move members or are trivially copyable. This is all way too complicated and sometimes gives surprising behavior. Here is the CWG issue tracking this bug:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#1402
As I write this, the issue does not have the correct proposed resolution. I expect that to change in about a week. At the 2012 Fall C++ standards meeting in Portland, OR, an agreement was reached which basically says:
= default
.In a nutshell, I expect the corrected wording of CWG 1402 to simply say:
In general, the compiler should generate move members if you have no user-declared copy members nor destructor.
= default
and= delete
counts as user-declared. If you declare one move member (e.g. move constructor), the other will not be implicitly generated. And if you=default
a move member, you'll get something that moves each base and member.
(in proper standardize). I have not yet seen the wording that will say this. Jason Merrill is writing it up for us.
This will mean that sometimes the compiler will implicitly generate throwing move members. But we were going for simple rules that nevertheless did the right thing most of the time (few surprises).
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With