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:
#include <utility>
void Eat(int&& food) { food = 0; };
int main() {
int food{2};
Eat(std::move(food));
Eat(std::move(food)); // This should err
}
<!--e57a25ab6845829454e8d69fc972939a-->
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.
<!--021abf342d371248e50ceaed478a90ca-->
See the guideline for information on the review process.
If your review is incorrectly listed, please copy-paste <code><!--meta-tag:bot-skip--></code> into the comment that the bot should ignore.
<!--5faf32d7da4f0f540f40219e4f7537a3-->
godbolt: https://godbolt.org/z/4T3r9PzK3
ACK fa88ac3f4f9b7ed99a1b6ee045cef9a019ed314e.
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?
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
ACK fa88ac3f4f9b7ed99a1b6ee045cef9a019ed314e
Thanks for the explanation.
ACK.