C++ – How to Determine if it’s Safe to Move Object Inside Its Destructor

I find it easiest to understand move semantics with example code. Let's start with a very simple string class which only holds a pointer to a heap-allocated block of memory:

#include <cstring>
#include <algorithm>

class string
{
    char* data;

public:

    string(const char* p)
    {
        size_t size = std::strlen(p) + 1;
        data = new char[size];
        std::memcpy(data, p, size);
    }

Since we chose to manage the memory ourselves, we need to follow the rule of three. I am going to defer writing the assignment operator and only implement the destructor and the copy constructor for now:

    ~string()
    {
        delete[] data;
    }

    string(const string& that)
    {
        size_t size = std::strlen(that.data) + 1;
        data = new char[size];
        std::memcpy(data, that.data, size);
    }

The copy constructor defines what it means to copy string objects. The parameter const string& that binds to all expressions of type string which allows you to make copies in the following examples:

string a(x);                                    // Line 1
string b(x + y);                                // Line 2
string c(some_function_returning_a_string());   // Line 3

Now comes the key insight into move semantics. Note that only in the first line where we copy x is this deep copy really necessary, because we might want to inspect x later and would be very surprised if x had changed somehow. Did you notice how I just said x three times (four times if you include this sentence) and meant the exact same object every time? We call expressions such as x "lvalues".

The arguments in lines 2 and 3 are not lvalues, but rvalues, because the underlying string objects have no names, so the client has no way to inspect them again at a later point in time. rvalues denote temporary objects which are destroyed at the next semicolon (to be more precise: at the end of the full-expression that lexically contains the rvalue). This is important because during the initialization of b and c, we could do whatever we wanted with the source string, and the client couldn't tell a difference!

C++0x introduces a new mechanism called "rvalue reference" which, among other things, allows us to detect rvalue arguments via function overloading. All we have to do is write a constructor with an rvalue reference parameter. Inside that constructor we can do anything we want with the source, as long as we leave it in some valid state:

    string(string&& that)   // string&& is an rvalue reference to a string
    {
        data = that.data;
        that.data = nullptr;
    }

What have we done here? Instead of deeply copying the heap data, we have just copied the pointer and then set the original pointer to null (to prevent 'delete[]' from source object's destructor from releasing our 'just stolen data'). In effect, we have "stolen" the data that originally belonged to the source string. Again, the key insight is that under no circumstance could the client detect that the source had been modified. Since we don't really do a copy here, we call this constructor a "move constructor". Its job is to move resources from one object to another instead of copying them.

Congratulations, you now understand the basics of move semantics! Let's continue by implementing the assignment operator. If you're unfamiliar with the copy and swap idiom, learn it and come back, because it's an awesome C++ idiom related to exception safety.

    string& operator=(string that)
    {
        std::swap(data, that.data);
        return *this;
    }
};

Huh, that's it? "Where's the rvalue reference?" you might ask. "We don't need it here!" is my answer :)

Note that we pass the parameter that by value, so that has to be initialized just like any other string object. Exactly how is that going to be initialized? In the olden days of C++98, the answer would have been "by the copy constructor". In C++0x, the compiler chooses between the copy constructor and the move constructor based on whether the argument to the assignment operator is an lvalue or an rvalue.

So if you say a = b, the copy constructor will initialize that (because the expression b is an lvalue), and the assignment operator swaps the contents with a freshly created, deep copy. That is the very definition of the copy and swap idiom -- make a copy, swap the contents with the copy, and then get rid of the copy by leaving the scope. Nothing new here.

But if you say a = x + y, the move constructor will initialize that (because the expression x + y is an rvalue), so there is no deep copy involved, only an efficient move. that is still an independent object from the argument, but its construction was trivial, since the heap data didn't have to be copied, just moved. It wasn't necessary to copy it because x + y is an rvalue, and again, it is okay to move from string objects denoted by rvalues.

To summarize, the copy constructor makes a deep copy, because the source must remain untouched. The move constructor, on the other hand, can just copy the pointer and then set the pointer in the source to null. It is okay to "nullify" the source object in this manner, because the client has no way of inspecting the object again.

I hope this example got the main point across. There is a lot more to rvalue references and move semantics which I intentionally left out to keep it simple. If you want more details please see my supplementary answer.

It's very unfortunate that you see dynamic allocation so often. That just shows how many bad C++ programmers there are.

In a sense, you have two questions bundled up into one. The first is when should we use dynamic allocation (using new)? The second is when should we use pointers?

The important take-home message is that you should always use the appropriate tool for the job. In almost all situations, there is something more appropriate and safer than performing manual dynamic allocation and/or using raw pointers.

Dynamic allocation

In your question, you've demonstrated two ways of creating an object. The main difference is the storage duration of the object. When doing Object myObject; within a block, the object is created with automatic storage duration, which means it will be destroyed automatically when it goes out of scope. When you do new Object(), the object has dynamic storage duration, which means it stays alive until you explicitly delete it. You should only use dynamic storage duration when you need it. That is, you should always prefer creating objects with automatic storage duration when you can.

The main two situations in which you might require dynamic allocation:

1. You need the object to outlive the current scope - that specific object at that specific memory location, not a copy of it. If you're okay with copying/moving the object (most of the time you should be), you should prefer an automatic object.
2. You need to allocate a lot of memory, which may easily fill up the stack. It would be nice if we didn't have to concern ourselves with this (most of the time you shouldn't have to), as it's really outside the purview of C++, but unfortunately, we have to deal with the reality of the systems we're developing for.

When you do absolutely require dynamic allocation, you should encapsulate it in a smart pointer or some other type that performs RAII (like the standard containers). Smart pointers provide ownership semantics of dynamically allocated objects. Take a look at std::unique_ptr and std::shared_ptr, for example. If you use them appropriately, you can almost entirely avoid performing your own memory management (see the Rule of Zero).

Pointers

However, there are other more general uses for raw pointers beyond dynamic allocation, but most have alternatives that you should prefer. As before, always prefer the alternatives unless you really need pointers.

1. You need reference semantics. Sometimes you want to pass an object using a pointer (regardless of how it was allocated) because you want the function to which you're passing it to have access that that specific object (not a copy of it). However, in most situations, you should prefer reference types to pointers, because this is specifically what they're designed for. Note this is not necessarily about extending the lifetime of the object beyond the current scope, as in situation 1 above. As before, if you're okay with passing a copy of the object, you don't need reference semantics.

2. You need polymorphism. You can only call functions polymorphically (that is, according to the dynamic type of an object) through a pointer or reference to the object. If that's the behavior you need, then you need to use pointers or references. Again, references should be preferred.

3. You want to represent that an object is optional by allowing a nullptr to be passed when the object is being omitted. If it's an argument, you should prefer to use default arguments or function overloads. Otherwise, you should preferably use a type that encapsulates this behavior, such as std::optional (introduced in C++17 - with earlier C++ standards, use boost::optional).

4. You want to decouple compilation units to improve compilation time. The useful property of a pointer is that you only require a forward declaration of the pointed-to type (to actually use the object, you'll need a definition). This allows you to decouple parts of your compilation process, which may significantly improve compilation time. See the Pimpl idiom.

5. You need to interface with a C library or a C-style library. At this point, you're forced to use raw pointers. The best thing you can do is make sure you only let your raw pointers loose at the last possible moment. You can get a raw pointer from a smart pointer, for example, by using its get member function. If a library performs some allocation for you which it expects you to deallocate via a handle, you can often wrap the handle up in a smart pointer with a custom deleter that will deallocate the object appropriately.