Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #15231

Re: Default move constructor/assignment

From woodbrian77@gmail.com
Newsgroups comp.lang.c++
Subject Re: Default move constructor/assignment
Date 2012-04-05 09:35 -0700
Organization http://groups.google.com
Message-ID <24078035.279.1333643732405.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynes7> (permalink)
References <4f7c129b$0$4386$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi> <4f7d3aa0$0$3114$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi> <28811616.820.1333614389405.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yno37> <4f7d62ac$0$3066$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi>

Show all headers | View raw

On Thursday, April 5, 2012 4:15:24 AM UTC-5, Juha Nieminen wrote:
>   So it's not necessary to explicitly declare a move constructor or
> assignment operator eg. for a struct having movable objects as members?

Right.  Here's the link to the cpp-next article I mentioned --
http://cpp-next.com/archive/2011/02/w00t-w00t-nix-nix/#more-3419

> 
>   Now that I explicitly test this with clang++, it indeed seems to be so.
> I'm not sure now why in the application I was making I was not getting
> this behavior (iow. the move constructors of the members were not being
> called, and instead the copy constructors were, unless I explicitly
> declared the default move constructor of the containing class.)

Perhaps adding a call to ::std::move would be needed?  Post some
code.

Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Default move constructor/assignment Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2012-04-04 09:21 +0000
  Re: Default move constructor/assignment Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2012-04-05 06:24 +0000
    Re: Default move constructor/assignment Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> - 2012-04-05 16:48 +0900
    Re: Default move constructor/assignment woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2012-04-05 01:26 -0700
      Re: Default move constructor/assignment Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2012-04-05 09:15 +0000
        Re: Default move constructor/assignment woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2012-04-05 09:35 -0700
          Re: Default move constructor/assignment Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2012-04-06 05:29 +0000
            Re: Default move constructor/assignment woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2012-04-06 23:26 -0700
              Re: Default move constructor/assignment Howard Hinnant <howard.hinnant@gmail.com> - 2012-04-07 10:34 -0700
                Re: Default move constructor/assignment woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2012-04-07 15:59 -0700
                Re: Default move constructor/assignment woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2012-04-07 18:58 -0700
                Re: Default move constructor/assignment SG <s.gesemann@gmail.com> - 2012-04-10 02:21 -0700

csiph-web