this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2023
16 points (100.0% liked)

C++

1763 readers
1 users here now

The center for all discussion and news regarding C++.

Rules

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Nihili0@programming.dev
lysdexic@programming.dev
16
The move constructor that you have to declare, even though you don't want anyone to actually call it - The Old New Thing (devblogs.microsoft.com)
submitted 1 year ago by lysdexic@programming.dev to c/cpp@programming.dev
4 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] VonTum@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

True, though here the hack is incredibly unintuitive for the programmer. You have to declare the constructor, but then leave it unimplemented. Not to mention the compiler error that should catch this now only occurs at link time, and linking errors are even more cryptic to grok.

When they made RVO mandatory, they should've removed the constructor declaration requirement as well, instead of a half-ass solution like this.

As a final nail in the coffin, std::is_move_constructible<> suddenly returns true for this non-move-constructible type 😉

[–] lysdexic@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago

True, though here the hack is incredibly unintuitive for the programmer.

I don't think this trick is anything other than trivia. The happy path to enable RVO is to provide a move constructor. There is nothing unintuitive about that.

This trivia item just points out that the way the C++ standard is specified, the definition isn't actually required. That's hardly relevant.

Not to mention the compiler error that should catch this now only occurs at link time, and linking errors are even more cryptic to grok.

There is nothing peculiar about handling missing definitions. Linkers only flag those if a symbol is actually missing.

When they made RVO mandatory, they should’ve removed the constructor declaration requirement as well, instead of a half-ass solution like this.

I don't think that your observation makes sense, or is even appropriate to the topic. RVO requires a movable type, and the rule of 5 is a well established aspect of C++. RVO does not change anything in that regard.