Good links are appreciated.
This question is related to
c++
c++11
move-semantics
c++-faq
stdmove
"What is it?" and "What does it do?" has been explained above.
I will give a example of "when it should be used".
For example, we have a class with lots of resource like big array in it.
class ResHeavy{ // ResHeavy means heavy resource
public:
ResHeavy(int len=10):_upInt(new int[len]),_len(len){
cout<<"default ctor"<<endl;
}
ResHeavy(const ResHeavy& rhs):_upInt(new int[rhs._len]),_len(rhs._len){
cout<<"copy ctor"<<endl;
}
ResHeavy& operator=(const ResHeavy& rhs){
_upInt.reset(new int[rhs._len]);
_len = rhs._len;
cout<<"operator= ctor"<<endl;
}
ResHeavy(ResHeavy&& rhs){
_upInt = std::move(rhs._upInt);
_len = rhs._len;
rhs._len = 0;
cout<<"move ctor"<<endl;
}
// check array valid
bool is_up_valid(){
return _upInt != nullptr;
}
private:
std::unique_ptr<int[]> _upInt; // heavy array resource
int _len; // length of int array
};
Test code:
void test_std_move2(){
ResHeavy rh; // only one int[]
// operator rh
// after some operator of rh, it becomes no-use
// transform it to other object
ResHeavy rh2 = std::move(rh); // rh becomes invalid
// show rh, rh2 it valid
if(rh.is_up_valid())
cout<<"rh valid"<<endl;
else
cout<<"rh invalid"<<endl;
if(rh2.is_up_valid())
cout<<"rh2 valid"<<endl;
else
cout<<"rh2 invalid"<<endl;
// new ResHeavy object, created by copy ctor
ResHeavy rh3(rh2); // two copy of int[]
if(rh3.is_up_valid())
cout<<"rh3 valid"<<endl;
else
cout<<"rh3 invalid"<<endl;
}
output as below:
default ctor
move ctor
rh invalid
rh2 valid
copy ctor
rh3 valid
We can see that std::move with move constructor makes transform resource easily.
Where else is std::move useful?
std::move can also be useful when sorting an array of elements. Many sorting algorithms (such as selection sort and bubble sort) work by swapping pairs of elements. Previously, we’ve had to resort to copy-semantics to do the swapping. Now we can use move semantics, which is more efficient.
It can also be useful if we want to move the contents managed by one smart pointer to another.
Cited:
While std::move() is technically a function - I would say it isn't really a function. It's sort of a converter between ways the compiler considers an expression's value.
The first thing to note is that std::move() doesn't actually move anything. It changes an expression from being an lvalue (such as a named variable) to being an xvalue. An xvalue tells the compiler:
You can plunder me, move anything I'm holding and use it elsewhere (since I'm going to be destroyed soon anyway)".
in other words, when you use std::move(x), you're allowing the compiler to cannibalize x. Thus if x has, say, its own buffer in memory - after std::move()ing the compiler can have another object own it instead.
You can also move from a prvalue (such as a temporary you're passing around), but this is rarely useful.
Another way to ask this question is "What would I cannibalize an existing object's resources for?" well, if you're writing application code, you would probably not be messing around a lot with temporary objects created by the compiler. So mainly you would do this in places like constructors, operator methods, standard-library-algorithm-like functions etc. where objects get created and destroyed automagically a lot. Of course, that's just a rule of thumb.
A typical use is 'moving' resources from one object to another instead of copying. @Guillaume links to this page which has a straightforward short example: swapping two objects with less copying.
template <class T>
swap(T& a, T& b) {
T tmp(a); // we now have two copies of a
a = b; // we now have two copies of b (+ discarded a copy of a)
b = tmp; // we now have two copies of tmp (+ discarded a copy of b)
}
using move allows you to swap the resources instead of copying them around:
template <class T>
swap(T& a, T& b) {
T tmp(std::move(a));
a = std::move(b);
b = std::move(tmp);
}
Think of what happens when T is, say, vector<int> of size n. In the first version you read and write 3*n elements, in the second version you basically read and write just the 3 pointers to the vectors' buffers, plus the 3 buffers' sizes. Of course, class T needs to know how to do the moving; your class should have a move-assignment operator and a move-constructor for class T for this to work.
You can use move when you need to "transfer" the content of an object somewhere else, without doing a copy (i.e. the content is not duplicated, that's why it could be used on some non-copyable objects, like a unique_ptr). It's also possible for an object to take the content of a temporary object without doing a copy (and save a lot of time), with std::move.
This link really helped me out :
http://thbecker.net/articles/rvalue_references/section_01.html
I'm sorry if my answer is coming too late, but I was also looking for a good link for the std::move, and I found the links above a little bit "austere".
This puts the emphasis on r-value reference, in which context you should use them, and I think it's more detailed, that's why I wanted to share this link here.
std::move itself doesn't really do much. I thought that it called the moved constructor for an object, but it really just performs a type cast (casting an lvalue variable to an rvalue so that the said variable can be passed as an argument to a move constructor or assignment operator).
So std::move is just used as a precursor to using move semantics. Move semantics is essentially an efficient way for dealing with temporary objects.
Consider Object A = B + C + D + E + F;
This is nice looking code, but E + F produces a temporary object. Then D + temp produces another temporary object and so on. In each normal "+" operator of a class, deep copies occur.
For example
Object Object::operator+ (const Object& rhs) {
Object temp (*this);
// logic for adding
return temp;
}
The creation of the temporary object in this function is useless - these temporary objects will be deleted at the end of the line anyway as they go out of scope.
We can rather use move semantics to "plunder" the temporary objects and do something like
Object& Object::operator+ (Object&& rhs) {
// logic to modify rhs directly
return rhs;
}
This avoids needless deep copies being made. With reference to the example, the only part where deep copying occurs is now E + F. The rest uses move semantics. The move constructor or assignment operator also needs to be implemented to assign the result to A.
std::move itself does nothing rather than a static_cast. According to cppreference.com
It is exactly equivalent to a static_cast to an rvalue reference type.
Thus, it depends on the type of the variable you assign to after the move, if the type has constructors or assign operators that takes a rvalue parameter, it may or may not steal the content of the original variable, so, it may leave the original variable to be in an unspecified state:
Unless otherwise specified, all standard library objects that have been moved from being placed in a valid but unspecified state.
Because there is no special move constructor or move assign operator for built-in literal types such as integers and raw pointers, so, it will be just a simple copy for these types.
Here is a full example, using std::move for a (simple) custom vector
Expected output:
c: [10][11]
copy ctor called
copy of c: [10][11]
move ctor called
moved c: [10][11]
Compile as:
g++ -std=c++2a -O2 -Wall -pedantic foo.cpp
Code:
#include <iostream>
#include <algorithm>
template<class T> class MyVector {
private:
T *data;
size_t maxlen;
size_t currlen;
public:
MyVector<T> () : data (nullptr), maxlen(0), currlen(0) { }
MyVector<T> (int maxlen) : data (new T [maxlen]), maxlen(maxlen), currlen(0) { }
MyVector<T> (const MyVector& o) {
std::cout << "copy ctor called" << std::endl;
data = new T [o.maxlen];
maxlen = o.maxlen;
currlen = o.currlen;
std::copy(o.data, o.data + o.maxlen, data);
}
MyVector<T> (const MyVector<T>&& o) {
std::cout << "move ctor called" << std::endl;
data = o.data;
maxlen = o.maxlen;
currlen = o.currlen;
}
void push_back (const T& i) {
if (currlen >= maxlen) {
maxlen *= 2;
auto newdata = new T [maxlen];
std::copy(data, data + currlen, newdata);
if (data) {
delete[] data;
}
data = newdata;
}
data[currlen++] = i;
}
friend std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream &os, const MyVector<T>& o) {
auto s = o.data;
auto e = o.data + o.currlen;;
while (s < e) {
os << "[" << *s << "]";
s++;
}
return os;
}
};
int main() {
auto c = new MyVector<int>(1);
c->push_back(10);
c->push_back(11);
std::cout << "c: " << *c << std::endl;
auto d = *c;
std::cout << "copy of c: " << d << std::endl;
auto e = std::move(*c);
delete c;
std::cout << "moved c: " << e << std::endl;
}
std::move?A: std::move() is a function from the C++ Standard Library for casting to a rvalue reference.
Simplisticly std::move(t) is equivalent to:
static_cast<T&&>(t);
An rvalue is a temporary that does not persist beyond the expression that defines it, such as an intermediate function result which is never stored in a variable.
int a = 3; // 3 is a rvalue, does not exist after expression is evaluated
int b = a; // a is a lvalue, keeps existing after expression is evaluated
An implementation for std::move() is given in N2027: "A Brief Introduction to Rvalue References" as follows:
template <class T>
typename remove_reference<T>::type&&
std::move(T&& a)
{
return a;
}
As you can see, std::move returns T&& no matter if called with a value (T), reference type (T&), or rvalue reference (T&&).
A: As a cast, it does not do anything during runtime. It is only relevant at compile time to tell the compiler that you would like to continue considering the reference as an rvalue.
foo(3 * 5); // obviously, you are calling foo with a temporary (rvalue)
int a = 3 * 5;
foo(a); // how to tell the compiler to treat `a` as an rvalue?
foo(std::move(a)); // will call `foo(int&& a)` rather than `foo(int a)` or `foo(int& a)`
What it does not do:
A: You should use std::move if you want to call functions that support move semantics with an argument which is not an rvalue (temporary expression).
This begs the following follow-up questions for me:
What is move semantics? Move semantics in contrast to copy semantics is a programming technique in which the members of an object are initialized by 'taking over' instead of copying another object's members. Such 'take over' makes only sense with pointers and resource handles, which can be cheaply transferred by copying the pointer or integer handle rather than the underlying data.
What kind of classes and objects support move semantics? It is up to you as a developer to implement move semantics in your own classes if these would benefit from transferring their members instead of copying them. Once you implement move semantics, you will directly benefit from work from many library programmers who have added support for handling classes with move semantics efficiently.
Why can't the compiler figure it out on its own? The compiler cannot just call another overload of a function unless you say so. You must help the compiler choose whether the regular or move version of the function should be called.
In which situations would I want to tell the compiler that it should treat a variable as an rvalue? This will most likely happen in template or library functions, where you know that an intermediate result could be salvaged.
Source: Stackoverflow.com