Why do I get an implicit move constructor in a class with a user-defined destructor - c++17

Question

I am confused with some aspects of the implicit move constructor.
My understanding is that the implicitly-declared move constructor are provided by the compiler for a class iff there are no user-declared copy constructors, no copy assignment operators, no move assignment operators and no destructors.
This is the case with 'Heavy' in my example. Which behaves as expected (data is moved).
'HeavyWithDestructor' would not qualify for a implicitly-declared move constructor, because it has a destructor, but I can "std::move" it. Sort of, it is a copy (see the data pointer).
This looks to me like a trivial move constructor, in the sense that it performs the same actions as the trivial copy constructor (as if by std::memmove).
But if I don't have the conditions for the creation of a implicit move constructor in the first place, how can it be a trivial move constructor. Further more, 'std::is_trivially_move_constructible_v' indicates this is not a trivial move constructor.
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <type_traits>
using namespace std;
constexpr int largeNumber = 10000000;
#define OUT(...) std::cout << #__VA_ARGS__ << " : " << __VA_ARGS__ << '\n'
// Consistent with an implicit 'move' constructor.
class Heavy
{
vector<int> v_;
public:
Heavy() : v_(vector<int>(largeNumber)) {}
int* getDatap() { return v_.data(); }
};
// Not consistent with an implicit 'move' constructor. (Because has a destructor)
class HeavyWithDestructor
{
vector<int> v_;
public:
HeavyWithDestructor() : v_(vector<int>(largeNumber)) {}
~HeavyWithDestructor(){}
int* getDatap() { return v_.data(); }
};
int main()
{
cout << "Moving a heavy object" << endl;
OUT(std::is_move_constructible_v<Heavy>);
OUT(std::is_trivially_move_constructible_v<Heavy>);
Heavy originalHeavy;
cout << "Data* in original() -> " << originalHeavy.getDatap() << endl;
Heavy finalHeavy = move(originalHeavy);
cout << "Data* in main() -> " << finalHeavy.getDatap() << endl << endl;
cout << "Moving a heavy object with a destructor" << endl;
OUT(std::is_move_constructible_v<HeavyWithDestructor>);
OUT(std::is_trivially_move_constructible_v<HeavyWithDestructor>);
HeavyWithDestructor originalWoDestructor;
cout << "Data* in original() -> " << originalWoDestructor.getDatap() << endl;
HeavyWithDestructor finalWoDestructor = move(originalWoDestructor);
cout << "Data* in main() -> " << finalWoDestructor.getDatap() << endl;
return 0;
}
I get the following output: I can confirm I am moving 'Heavy' cause the pointers to the vector data point to the same location. I can also confirm that 'HeavyWithDestructor' is copying, not moving the data.
Moving a heavy object
std::is_move_constructible_v<Heavy> : 1
std::is_trivially_move_constructible_v<Heavy> : 0
Data* in original() -> 000001E3FB193080
Data* in main() -> 000001E3FB193080
Moving a heavy object with a destructor
std::is_move_constructible_v<HeavyWithDestructor> : 1
std::is_trivially_move_constructible_v<HeavyWithDestructor> : 0
Data* in original() -> 000001E3FD7C6080
Data* in main() -> 000001E38000A080
What is this constructor that the compiler is declaring for 'HeavyWithDestructor'?. If this constructor is not moving the data, why can I still use std::move on it?
If I try harder to make the compiler NOT declare a move constructor for me by defining a copy constructor, then I cannot use the std::move. I get compilation errors. This is what I would expect. From this, I gather the constructor I am getting is not a copy constructor. From where I initially suspected this is a trivial move constructor (that behaves as in std::memmove), but I have indications that is not right either. So what is this?
I am using vs2019 c++17 as a compiler.

Answer 1

HeavyWithDestructor is a typical C++03 type: copyable but not movable (what’s “movable”?). As such, for compatibility, it is copied whenever a move is attempted. The technical reason for this is that const HeavyWithDestructor& can bind to an rvalue; the moral reason is that std::move, as always, grants permission to move something but does not require it (or do so itself).
(Your experiment with a copy constructor is not detailed enough to reproduce, but might have involved HeavyWithDestructor(HeavyWithDestructor&) that is still considered a copy constructor but cannot serve as a move constructor.)