Without this doc, there is a risk that the setting will be turned off, see #34514.
The reason to disable it is to catch logic bugs, even on trivially copyable types:
0#include <utility>
1void Eat(int&& food) { food = 0; };
2int main() {
3 int food{2};
4 Eat(std::move(food));
5 Eat(std::move(food)); // This should err
6}
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.
See the guideline for information on the review process.
If your review is incorrectly listed, please copy-paste <!–meta-tag:bot-skip–> into the comment that the bot should ignore.
Eat(std::move(food)); // This should err - it’s a primitive, why would we want to prohibit it being used multiple times? Isn’t there a less hacky way to do that if this is indeed a contract we want to enforce?
I’m not sure I understand the point of
Eat(std::move(food)); // This should err- it’s a primitive, why would we want to prohibit it being used multiple times? Isn’t there a less hacky way to do that if this is indeed a contract we want to enforce?
Some resources can only be used once. I don’t understand what is hacky about std::move+clang-tidy.
Sure, there are other ways to achieve this with runtime checks, or clang annotations. Though, both of them require a verbose wrapper class. Also, runtime checks are not statically checked. Also, the verbose clang annotation only work on clang (obviously). Ex: https://godbolt.org/z/jYq6qe4qq
I don’t see the benefit.
ACK fa88ac3f4f9b7ed99a1b6ee045cef9a019ed314e
Thanks for the explanation.