U++ forum: Welcome to the forum

Re: Should the pick semantics be changed? [message #42591 is a reply to message #42579]

Wed, 26 March 2014 02:48

Lance
Messages: 527
Registered: March 2007

Contributor

Quote:

there is an inconsistency in g++: when you write "new C(getC());" then on the heap the C object is initialized with r-value, it's syntactic sugar for "new C(move(getC));". however, if inside getC() you write "C o; createCBasedOnType(type,o); return o;" then this isn't syntactic sugar for "C o; createCBasedOnType(type,o); return move(o);". in the first case the syntactic sugar is rationalized by the impermanence of the C object getC() sends to the initializer. but also the object o which is the return-value of getC() is impermanent, it gets destroyed immediately after the return-value has been created. it is an inconsistency that both cases aren't treated the same in terms of syntactic sugar! it's not really a bug, but it's counterintuitive.

what g++ does is exactly what's required by the c++11 standard and hence will be done by compliant vc++ or other c++.

First case, getC() returns a tempoary (unnamed_, which is a r-value reference. while in the second case, o is named, std::move() utility or its equivalent is required to convert it into a r-value reference.

By the way, it has nothing to do with where it's created on the heap, it has to do with whether you are constructing with a temporary or a named a varaible, eg

struct C{

C(const C& c){}
C(C&& c){}

};

C getC()
{
    C c;
    return std::move(c);
}  

int test()
{
    C c=getC(); // the move constructor will be called;
    C*p=new C(getC()); // same move constructor;

    C d=c; // copy ctor will be called;


    C e=std::move(c); // with named variable, std::move or
              // equivalent is required to invoke the move ctor
}

Report message to a moderator