My paper P1144 “Object relocation in terms of move plus destroy” is still on R5 as of this writing, but I hope to publish P1144R6 Real Soon Now. I recently updated my Clang fork on p1144.godbolt.org to reflect the changes in R6.

One of those changes is that R0’s algorithm std::relocate_at(T* source, T* dest) is joined by T std::relocate(T* source). This new algorithm std::relocate takes the object pointed to by source and relocates it into the return slot, giving you a prvalue. You can use this prvalue in combination with the superconstructing super elider (2018-05-17) to emplace the relocated object directly into a container (Godbolt):

void relocate_in(std::vector<W>& v, W *pw) {
    struct S {
        W *pw_;
        operator W() const { return std::relocate(pw_); }
    };
    v.emplace_back(S{pw});
}

void test_relocate() {
    alignas(W) char buffer[sizeof(W)];
    W *pw = ::new (buffer) W();
    std::vector<W> v;
    relocate_in(v, pw);
    // now v[0] is alive and *pw is dead
}

Notice that test_relocate calls ::new to begin the lifetime of the object at *pw; but it never calls pw->~W() to destroy that object. Instead, it relocates the object from *pw into the newly emplaced v[0]; and then the vector takes care of destroying v[0] at the closing curly brace.

P1144 std::relocate is tantamount to a memcpy for trivially relocatable types; for non-trivially relocatable types it falls back to move-plus-destroy. You can see that in the Godbolt if you replace Widget’s std::string member with a std::list<int> member instead.

Now for the main point of this post. std::relocate is tantamount to a memcpy, but how do we actually implement that? Standard C++ doesn’t give us any way to access the return slot directly; even NRVO wants its named return variable to be constructed, not plopped on the stack as a bag-of-bits we memcpy into! So the solution will involve UB, and knowledge of the calling convention on our ABI. It happens that on the Itanium ABI, whenever the return type’s destructor is non-trivial, the callee receives a “hidden pointer” to the return slot in the first parameter slot. The real first parameter is shifted to the second parameter slot. So, from the Itanium ABI’s point of view, T foo(T* source) has the same signature as T* foo(T* dest, T* source).

Vice versa, T* memcpy(T* dest, T* source, size_t n) has the same signature as T memcpy(T* source, size_t n)… and we can use that! Our library-vendor implementation of std::relocate, for the Itanium ABI, can look just like this:

template<class T>
    requires is_trivially_relocatable_v<T> &&
             !is_trivially_destructible_v<T>
T relocate(T *source) noexcept {
    auto magic = (T(*)(void*, size_t))memcpy;
    return magic(source, sizeof(T));
}

Cute, right?

Of course there’s also a second overload for types that are either non-trivially relocatable (std::list), where we must move-plus-destroy for correctness; or fully trivial for purposes of ABI (int), where the memcpy trick doesn’t work because the calling convention is different. This second overload is a bit more complicated because it’s non-noexcept: we must ensure that we destroy *source even if the move constructor throws. Using “The Auto macro” (2018-08-11) to hide the boilerplate, we might write that overload as follows:

template<class T>
T relocate(T *source)
    noexcept(is_nothrow_move_constructible_v<T>)
{
    Auto(source->~T());
    return std::move(*source);
}

Further reading

For more on how prvalues essentially (since C++17) smuggle around “recipes” for creating objects, read Sy Brand’s blog post “Guaranteed Copy Elision Does Not Elide Copies” (December 2018). For more on the Itanium ABI calling convention and the “return slot,” watch the first eight minutes of my CppCon 2018 talk “RVO is Harder Than It Looks.”