http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61143
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to François Dumont from comment #4) > I simply considered that the moved container instance wouldn't be reused > this way, just potentially for some immutable operations. I should have > checked the Standard regarding the meaning of "valid by unspecified state". Objects can definitely be re-used after being moved from. This has to work. > There are indeed numerous places to consider to make this code and any other > mutable code valid. I would also prefer to avoid those checks but I remember > that I needed to leave the container in this state for exception guaranty > reasons in some move operations. I will recall rational of this as soon as I > can take a look to the code. We wanted the move constructor to be noexcept. That's important, but so is being able to reuse the object again.
