Consider this code:

extern void foo(A &a);
extern void foo(A &&a);

void bar(void)
{
A a,*ap = new A;

foo(*ap);
delete ap;

foo(a);
}

Would the compiler be required or allowed to use the second overload of foo() for either of the two calls to foo() in bar() ?

Separate question: was consideration given to requiring functions that take a rvalue reference to be equivalent to an explicit destructor call on the object? And, in a question related to that question, does/should the Standard require that this:

ap->~A();
delete static_cast<void *>(ap);

work?

Walter Karas wrote:
> Consider this code:
>
> extern void foo(A &a);
> extern void foo(A &&a);
>
> void bar(void)
> {
> A a,*ap = new A;
>
> foo(*ap);
> delete ap;
>
> foo(a);
> }
>
> Would the compiler be required or allowed to use the
> second overload of foo() for either of the two calls to
> foo() in bar() ?

No. 'a' and '*ap' are not rvalues, so in your example, foo(A&&a) will never be called.


> Separate question: was consideration given to requiring
> functions that take a rvalue reference to be equivalent to
> an explicit destructor call on the object? And, in a
> question related to that question, does/should the
> Standard require that this:
>
> ap->~A();
> delete static_cast<void *>(ap);
>
> work?

I guess N1377 section "Alternative move designs" might be of help to you:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2002/n1377.htm#Alternative%20move%20designs

Happy programming!

-- Niels

> Walter Karas wrote:
> > Consider this code:
> >
> > extern void foo(A &a);
> > extern void foo(A &&a);
> >
> > void bar(void)
> > {
> > A a,*ap = new A;
> >
> > foo(*ap);
> > delete ap;
> >
> > foo(a);
> > }
> >
> > Would the compiler be required or allowed to use the
> > second overload of foo() for either of the two calls to
> > foo() in bar() ?
>
> No. 'a' and '*ap' are not rvalues, so in your example,
> foo(A&&a) will never be called.

Could it be forced like this?

foo(static_cast<A &&>(*ap));

foo(static_cast<A &&>(a));

>
>
> > Separate question: was consideration given to
> requiring
> > functions that take a rvalue reference to be equivalent
> to
> > an explicit destructor call on the object? And, in a
> > question related to that question, does/should the
> > Standard require that this:
> >
> > ap->~A();
> > delete static_cast<void *>(ap);
> >
> > work?
>
> I guess N1377 section "Alternative move designs" might be
> of help to you:
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2002/n13
> 77.htm#Alternative%20move%20designs
>
> Happy programming!
>
> -- Niels


A a;
A&& a_ref2 = a; // an rvalue reference

This example from the article wouldn't compile with current compilers. Did things change and the article should be considered outdated?