On the morning of Wednesday 2018-11-07, my paper P1144R0 “Object relocation in terms of move plus destroy” was presented at the WG21 meeting in San Diego. It was presented in an early-morning session of SG17, the Evolution Working Group Incubator (EWGI), which is one of two “incubator” study groups newly formed for the San Diego meeting. (This means that it did not get seen by EWG.)

My thanks to Corentin Jabot for championing the paper and attempting to get it heard!

One straw poll was taken:

Should we commit additional committee time to solving the problem P1144R0 is trying to solve, knowing it will leave less time to other work? 8 3 0 0 0

(Read this result as “8 strongly in favor; 3 in favor; none neutral or against.” There might have been more than 11 people in the room, if some of them abstained due to lack of opinion; for example, abstaining would be appropriate for someone who hadn’t read the paper.)

EWGI did not give any other feedback on the paper.

This is where you come in!

Please give me your feedback on the technical content of P1144R0!

The paper presents the following straw polls that could have been taken, but none of these were permitted.

EWG1. We approve of the general idea that user-defined classes should be able to warrant their own trivial relocatability via a standard mechanism.

EWG2. We approve of the general idea that user-defined classes which follow the Rule of Zero should inherit the trivial relocatability of their bases and members.

EWG3. Nobody should be able to warrant the trivial relocatability of class C except for class C itself (i.e., we do not want to see a customization point analogous to std::hash ).

EWG4. A class should be able to warrant its own trivial relocatability via the attribute [[trivially_relocatable]] , as proposed in this paper.

EWG5. A class should be able to warrant its own trivial relocatability via some attribute, but not necessarily under that exact name.

EWG6. A class should be able to warrant its own trivial relocatability as proposed in this paper, but we prefer to see a contextual keyword rather than an attribute.

EWG7. If a trait with the semantics of is_trivially_relocatable<T> is added to the <type_traits> header, the programmer should be permitted to specialize it for program-defined types (i.e., we want to see that trait itself become a customization point analogous to std::hash ).

EWG8. Trivial relocatability should be assumed by default. Classes such as those in Appendix C should indicate their non-trivial relocatability via an opt-in mechanism.

EWG9. To simplify conditionally trivial relocation, if an attribute with the semantics of [[trivially_relocatable]] is added, it should take a boolean argument.

LEWG10. The algorithm uninitialized_relocate(first, last, d_first) should be added to the <memory> header, as proposed in this paper.

LEWG11. The type trait is_relocatable<T> should be added to the <type_traits> header, as proposed in this paper.

LEWG12. If is_relocatable<T> is added, then we should also add is_nothrow_relocatable<T> , as proposed in this paper.

LEWG13. The type trait is_trivially_relocatable<T> should be added to the <type_traits> header, under that exact name, as proposed in this paper.

LEWG14. We approve of a trait with the semantics of is_trivially_relocatable<T> , but possibly under a different name. (For example, is_bitwise_relocatable .)

LEWG15. If is_trivially_relocatable<T> is added, under that exact name, then the type trait is_trivially_swappable<T> should also be added to the <type_traits> header.

If you feel comfortable responding to these statements in public, I’d love to see your opinions (what Wikipedia calls “!votes”) posted in this std-proposals forum thread. If you don’t want your !votes to be public, you can always email them to me privately. I will tally the ballots and report the results in P1144R1, which will appear in the post-San-Diego mailing (submission deadline: 2018-11-26).

Clang patch D50119 is a complete and tested implementation of [[trivially_relocatable]] . Nicolas Lesser has put in a lot of time reviewing the semantics, but nobody with commit privileges has looked at it yet AFAIK. If you would like to see an implementation of P1144 not just available on Godbolt but actually shipping in Clang trunk, please ask your friendly neighborhood Clang committer to look at D50119!

If you are a Clang committer, please review D50119!