Rust behavior after move [duplicate] - rust

Question

The Rust language website claims move semantics as one of the features of the language. But I can't see how move semantics is implemented in Rust.
Rust boxes are the only place where move semantics are used.
let x = Box::new(5);
let y: Box<i32> = x; // x is 'moved'
The above Rust code can be written in C++ as
auto x = std::make_unique<int>(5);
auto y = std::move(x); // Note the explicit move
As far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong),
Rust doesn't have constructors at all, let alone move constructors.
No support for rvalue references.
No way to create functions overloads with rvalue parameters.
How does Rust provide move semantics?

Answer 1

I think it's a very common issue when coming from C++. In C++ you are doing everything explicitly when it comes to copying and moving. The language was designed around copying and references. With C++11 the ability to "move" stuff was glued onto that system. Rust on the other hand took a fresh start.
Rust doesn't have constructors at all, let alone move constructors.
You do not need move constructors. Rust moves everything that "does not have a copy constructor", a.k.a. "does not implement the Copy trait".
struct A;
fn test() {
let a = A;
let b = a;
let c = a; // error, a is moved
}
Rust's default constructor is (by convention) simply an associated function called new:
struct A(i32);
impl A {
fn new() -> A {
A(5)
}
}
More complex constructors should have more expressive names. This is the named constructor idiom in C++
No support for rvalue references.
It has always been a requested feature, see RFC issue 998, but most likely you are asking for a different feature: moving stuff to functions:
struct A;
fn move_to(a: A) {
// a is moved into here, you own it now.
}
fn test() {
let a = A;
move_to(a);
let c = a; // error, a is moved
}
No way to create functions overloads with rvalue parameters.
You can do that with traits.
trait Ref {
fn test(&self);
}
trait Move {
fn test(self);
}
struct A;
impl Ref for A {
fn test(&self) {
println!("by ref");
}
}
impl Move for A {
fn test(self) {
println!("by value");
}
}
fn main() {
let a = A;
(&a).test(); // prints "by ref"
a.test(); // prints "by value"
}

Answer 2

Rust's moving and copying semantics are very different from C++. I'm going to take a different approach to explain them than the existing answer.
In C++, copying is an operation that can be arbitrarily complex, due to custom copy constructors. Rust doesn't want custom semantics of simple assignment or argument passing, and so takes a different approach.
First, an assignment or argument passing in Rust is always just a simple memory copy.
let foo = bar; // copies the bytes of bar to the location of foo (might be elided)
function(foo); // copies the bytes of foo to the parameter location (might be elided)
But what if the object controls some resources? Let's say we are dealing with a simple smart pointer, Box.
let b1 = Box::new(42);
let b2 = b1;
At this point, if just the bytes are copied over, wouldn't the destructor (drop in Rust) be called for each object, thus freeing the same pointer twice and causing undefined behavior?
The answer is that Rust moves by default. This means that it copies the bytes to the new location, and the old object is then gone. It is a compile error to access b1 after the second line above. And the destructor is not called for it. The value was moved to b2, and b1 might as well not exist anymore.
This is how move semantics work in Rust. The bytes are copied over, and the old object is gone.
In some discussions about C++'s move semantics, Rust's way was called "destructive move". There have been proposals to add the "move destructor" or something similar to C++ so that it can have the same semantics. But move semantics as they are implemented in C++ don't do this. The old object is left behind, and its destructor is still called. Therefore, you need a move constructor to deal with the custom logic required by the move operation. Moving is just a specialized constructor/assignment operator that is expected to behave in a certain way.
So by default, Rust's assignment moves the object, making the old location invalid. But many types (integers, floating points, shared references) have semantics where copying the bytes is a perfectly valid way of creating a real copy, with no need to ignore the old object. Such types should implement the Copy trait, which can be derived by the compiler automatically.
#[derive(Copy)]
struct JustTwoInts {
one: i32,
two: i32,
}
This signals the compiler that assignment and argument passing do not invalidate the old object:
let j1 = JustTwoInts { one: 1, two: 2 };
let j2 = j1;
println!("Still allowed: {}", j1.one);
Note that trivial copying and the need for destruction are mutually exclusive; a type that is Copy cannot also be Drop.
Now what about when you want to make a copy of something where just copying the bytes isn't enough, e.g. a vector? There is no language feature for this; technically, the type just needs a function that returns a new object that was created the right way. But by convention this is achieved by implementing the Clone trait and its clone function. In fact, the compiler supports automatic derivation of Clone too, where it simply clones every field.
#[Derive(Clone)]
struct JustTwoVecs {
one: Vec<i32>,
two: Vec<i32>,
}
let j1 = JustTwoVecs { one: vec![1], two: vec![2, 2] };
let j2 = j1.clone();
And whenever you derive Copy, you should also derive Clone, because containers like Vec use it internally when they are cloned themselves.
#[derive(Copy, Clone)]
struct JustTwoInts { /* as before */ }
Now, are there any downsides to this? Yes, in fact there is one rather big downside: because moving an object to another memory location is just done by copying bytes, and no custom logic, a type cannot have references into itself. In fact, Rust's lifetime system makes it impossible to construct such types safely.
But in my opinion, the trade-off is worth it.

Answer 3

Rust supports move semantics with features like these:
All types are moveable.
Sending a value somewhere is a move, by default, throughout the language. For non-Copy types, like Vec, the following are all moves in Rust: passing an argument by value, returning a value, assignment, pattern-matching by value.
You don't have std::move in Rust because it's the default. You're really using moves all the time.
Rust knows that moved values must not be used. If you have a value x: String and do channel.send(x), sending the value to another thread, the compiler knows that x has been moved. Trying to use it after the move is a compile-time error, "use of moved value". And you can't move a value if anyone has a reference to it (a dangling pointer).
Rust knows not to call destructors on moved values. Moving a value transfers ownership, including responsibility for cleanup. Types don't have to be able to represent a special "value was moved" state.
Moves are cheap and the performance is predictable. It's basically memcpy. Returning a huge Vec is always fast—you're just copying three words.
The Rust standard library uses and supports moves everywhere. I already mentioned channels, which use move semantics to safely transfer ownership of values across threads. Other nice touches: all types support copy-free std::mem::swap() in Rust; the Into and From standard conversion traits are by-value; Vec and other collections have .drain() and .into_iter() methods so you can smash one data structure, move all the values out of it, and use those values to build a new one.
Rust doesn't have move references, but moves are a powerful and central concept in Rust, providing a lot of the same performance benefits as in C++, and some other benefits as well.

Answer 4

let s = vec!["udon".to_string(), "ramen".to_string(), "soba".to_string()];
this is how it is represented in memory
Then let's assign s to t
let t = s;
this is what happens:
let t = s MOVED the vector’s three header fields from s to t; now t is the owner of the vector. The vector’s elements stayed just
where they were, and nothing happened to the strings either. Every value still has a single owner.
Now s is freed, if I write this
let u = s
I get error: "use of moved value: s"
Rust applies move semantics to almost any use of a value (Except Copy types). Passing
arguments to functions moves ownership to the function’s parameters;
returning a value from a function moves ownership to the caller.
Building a tuple moves the values into the tuple. And so on.
Ref for example:Programming Rust by Jim Blandy, Jason Orendorff, Leonora F. S. Tindall
Primitive types cannot be empty and are fixed size while non primitives can grow and can be empty. since primitive types cannot be empty and are fixed size, therefore assigning memory to store them and handling them are relatively easy. however the handling of non primitives involves the computation of how much memory they will take as they grow and other costly operations.Wwith primitives rust will make a copy, with non primitive rust does a move
fn main(){
// this variable is stored in stack. primitive types are fixed size, we can store them on stack
let x:i32=10;
// s1 is stored in heap. os will assign memory for this. pointer of this memory will be stored inside stack.
// s1 is the owner of memory space in heap which stores "my name"
// if we dont clear this memory, os will have no access to this memory. rust uses ownership to free the memory
let s1=String::from("my name");
// s1 will be cleared from the stack, s2 will be added to the stack poniting the same heap memory location
// making new copy of this string will create extra overhead, so we MOVED the ownership of s1 into s2
let s2=s1;
// s3 is the pointer to s2 which points to heap memory. we Borrowed the ownership
// Borrowing is similar borrowing in real life, you borrow a car from your friend, but its ownership does not change
let s3=&s2;
// this is creating new "my name" in heap and s4 stored as the pointer of this memory location on the heap
let s4=s2.clone()
}
Same principle applies when we pass primitive or non-primitive type arguments to a function:
fn main(){
// since this is primitive stack_function will make copy of it so this will remain unchanged
let stack_num=50;
let mut heap_vec=vec![2,3,4];
// when we pass a stack variable to a function, function will make a copy of that and will use the copy. "move" does not occur here
stack_var_fn(stack_num);
println!("The stack_num inside the main fn did not change:{}",stack_num);
// the owner of heap_vec moved here and when function gets executed, it goes out of scope so the variable will be dropped
// we can pass a reference to reach the value in heap. so we use the pointer of heap_vec
// we use "&"" operator to indicate that we are passing a reference
heap_var_fn(&heap_vec);
println!("the heap_vec inside main is:{:?}",heap_vec);
}
// this fn that we pass an argument stored in stack
fn stack_var_fn(mut var:i32){
// we are changing the arguments value
var=56;
println!("Var inside stack_var_fn is :{}",var);
}
// this fn that we pass an arg that stored in heap
fn heap_var_fn(var:&Vec<i32>){
println!("Var:{:?}",var);
}

Answer 5

I would like to add that it is not necessary for move to memcpy. If the object on the stack is large enough, Rust's compiler may choose to pass the object's pointer instead.

Answer 6

In C++ the default assignment of classes and structs is shallow copy. The values are copied, but not the data referenced by pointers. So modifying one instance changes the referenced data of all copies. The values (f.e. used for administration) remain unchanged in the other instance, likely rendering an inconsistent state. A move semantic avoids this situation. Example for a C++ implementation of a memory managed container with move semantic:
template <typename T>
class object
{
T *p;
public:
object()
{
p=new T;
}
~object()
{
if (p != (T *)0) delete p;
}
template <typename V> //type V is used to allow for conversions between reference and value
object(object<V> &v) //copy constructor with move semantic
{
p = v.p; //move ownership
v.p = (T *)0; //make sure it does not get deleted
}
object &operator=(object<T> &v) //move assignment
{
delete p;
p = v.p;
v.p = (T *)0;
return *this;
}
T &operator*() { return *p; } //reference to object *d
T *operator->() { return p; } //pointer to object data d->
};
Such an object is automatically garbage collected and can be returned from functions to the calling program. It is extremely efficient and does the same as Rust does:
object<somestruct> somefn() //function returning an object
{
object<somestruct> a;
auto b=a; //move semantic; b becomes invalid
return b; //this moves the object to the caller
}
auto c=somefn();
//now c owns the data; memory is freed after leaving the scope