Catching use-after-move C++ bugs with Clang's consumed annotations

Re:Catching use-after-move C++ bugs with Clang's consumed an... by foota on Wednesday July 10, 2019 @12:20PM (#20403412)

I believe the standard says that move does "valid but unspecified" for standard library objects, but does not generally guarantee that moved from objects must be valid.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Catching use-after-move C++ bugs with Clang's consumed an... by ori_b on Wednesday July 10, 2019 @02:15PM (#20404700)

The destructor gets called on them. They need to be valid enough for that.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Catching use-after-move C++ bugs with Clang's consumed an... by foota on Wednesday July 10, 2019 @05:09PM (#20406578)

Hm, technically don't think this would be required. Take for instance:

  auto no_destroy = new MoveNoDestroy();

  MoveNoDestroy* moved_into;

  *moved_into = std::move(*no_destroy);

Wouldn't call the destructor of the moved from MoveNoDestroy.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Catching use-after-move C++ bugs with Clang's consumed an... by 0xffff2 on Wednesday July 10, 2019 @06:51PM (#20407410)

Yes, if you leak resources, their destructors won't be called. That really has nothing at all to do with move semantics though. I think the important point is that move semantics don't alter the lifetime management of the moved-from object.

[ Parent | on HN ]