Under what conditions should I be thinking about implementing a move constructor and a move operator?

You don't have to worry about it, in the sense that when you user-declare a destructor (or anything else listed in 12. 8/9), that blocks the default move constructor from being generated. So there's not the same risk as there is with copies, that the default is wrong.

Up vote 5 down vote favorite 1 share g+ share fb share tw.

For standard copy constructors and assignment operators, I always think about implementing them or deleteing the defaults out of existence, if my class implements a destructor. For the new move constructor and move operator, what is the right way to think about whether or not an implementation is necessary? As a first pass of transitioning a system from pre-C++0x, could I just delete the default move constructor and move operator or should I leave them alone?

C++ constructor c++11 rvalue-reference link|improve this question asked Dec 12 '11 at 9:27kfmfe042,2571113 92% accept rate.

You don't have to worry about it, in the sense that when you user-declare a destructor (or anything else listed in 12. 8/9), that blocks the default move constructor from being generated. So there's not the same risk as there is with copies, that the default is wrong.

So, as the first pass leave them alone. There may be places in your existing code where C++11 move semantics allow a move, whereas C++03 dictates a copy. Your class will continue to be copied, and if that caused no performance problems in C++03 then I can't immediately think of any reason why it would in C++11.

If it did cause performance problems in C++03, then you have an opportunity to fix a bug in your code that you never got around to before, but that's an opportunity, not an obligation ;-) If you later implement move construction and assignment, they will be moved, and in particular you'll want to do this if you think that C++11 clients of your class are less likely to use "swaptimization" to avoid copies, more likely to pass your type by value, etc, than C++03 clients were. When writing new classes in C++11, you need to consider and implement move under the same criteria that you considered and implemented swap in C++03. A class that can be copied implements the C++11 concept of "movable", (much as a class that can be copied in C++03 can be swapped via the default implementation in std), because "movable" doesn't say what state the source is left in - in particular it's permitted to be unchanged.

So a copy is valid as a move, it's just not necessarily an efficient one, and for many classes you'll find that unlike a "good" move or swap, a copy can throw. You might find that you have to implement move for your classes in cases where you have a destructor (hence no default move constructor), and you also have a data member which is movable but not copyable (hence no default copy constructor either). That's when move becomes important semantically as well as for performance.

With C++11, you very rarely need to provide a destructor or copy semantics, due to the way the library is written. Compiler provided members pretty much always do fine (provided they are implemented correctly: MSVC forces you to implement a lot of move semantics by hand, which is very bothersome). In case you have to implement a custom destructor, use the following approach: Implement a move constructor, and an assignment operator taking by value (using copy&swap: note that you cannot use std::swap since it uses the assignment.

You have to provide a private swap yourself). Pay attention to exception guarantees (look up std::move_if_noexcept). If necessary, implement a copy constructor.

Otherwise, delete it. Beware that non default copy semantics rarely make sense. Also, a virtual destructor counts as a custom destructor: provide or delete copy + move semantics when declaring a virtual destructor.

Since they are used as an optimization you should implement them if the optimization is applicable to your class. If you can "steal" the internal resource your class is holding from a temporary object that is about to be destroyed. Std::vector is a perfect example, where move constructor only assigns pointers to internal buffer leaving the temporary object empty (effectively stealing the elements).

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.