can you help me pls bro? i will send u my full script

To avoid such questions, you should familiarize yourself with the character code. A Wikipedia page is enough for this.

I maked tihs 'int v = (char)v' and solved😁🙏🙏

I maked tihs 'int v = (char)v' and solved😁🙏🙏

what is the best way to master c++'s oop?

sources

me

should i start a course or practice on online site ? if so kindly recommend some resources to start something

I maked tihs 'int v = (char)v' and solved😁🙏🙏

Does destructive moves outperforms that extra check of the moved-from object state in non-destructive move? Do compilers have a way to workaround that extra hit?

Could you please elaborate more? I don't know what a "destructive move" is

Does destructive moves outperforms that extra check of the moved-from object state in non-destructive move? Do compilers have a way to workaround that extra hit?

STD::move is quite performant

Yeah C++ moves requires a lot of checking If (this != &rhs) in move assignment And the one mentioned above

I mean that looks totally ugly Dunno if the standard committe is working on solving this problem

STD::move is quite performant

Just an unconditional rvalue cast, but kills the whole purpose of zero cost abstraction Edit: Maybe little

> but kills the whole purpose of zero cost abstraction Lol, how?

You wouldn't write such code in pure C counterpart if( this != &rhs)

So?

Does destructive moves outperforms that extra check of the moved-from object state in non-destructive move? Do compilers have a way to workaround that extra hit?

And you do so in C++ Move assignment It's just annoying thing

I mean optimization or anything to get this annoying thing out of the execution way?

Just don't write it lol, if you don't need it

In C you are just manipulating pointers

And in dtor check?

What destructor check?

Like in the case std::unique_ptr

It checks whether it's nullptr or not So to decide whether to delete it or not

I don't understand your point

When you have a class that manages some resources and that class supports move operations You need to add extra checks inside the destructor to check for the validity of the objects managed by that class So my question is: Do compilers normally optimize out that extra check?

The moved-from state means that an object has a valid arbitrary state, so you can call the destructor on the object.

I don't get your point In case of unique_ptr There is still a check for nullptr in order to avoid double free issue

https://t.me/programminginc/512924 Are you serious?

It's really a happy and fulfilling life.

You can check the dtor implementation of std::unique_ptr It has that extra check

The burden of proof is on you

Am I allowed to send screenshot?

Here is cppreference link https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/memory/unique_ptr/~unique_ptr

Yes, because it's noop😂

Why tf do you dislike the truth lol

Anyway If you do not know the implementation of unique_ptr is not my problem So I guess you cannot provide any help

You're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist

It does exist There is no way to avoid that extra check and that's the problem Unique_ptr is just an example

It does exist There is no way to avoid that extra check and that's the problem Unique_ptr is just an example

There is no need for this check

The check is there because there is a deleter function, not a delete call

should be quite easy to check, generate a test function, see if there's a weird jump instruction

.

https://t.me/programminginc/512948 Do you understand this?!