[BUG] Move semantics not working as expected

[general-rishkin]

Describe the bug
Use of moved value after move.

To Reproduce
This should fail but does not:

struct Mover {
  val: int
}

fn consume(m: Mover) {
  println "m.val = {m.val}"
}

fn main() {
  let m = Mover { val: 10 }
  consume(m) // m moved
  
  // Use after move (Call - Negative Test)
  consume(m); // Should fail: Use of moved value 'm'
}

Expected behavior
Second call to ```consume`` should fail.

Screenshots

     Running a.out
m.val = 10
m.val = 10

Environment (please complete the following information):

• OS: Ubuntu 25.10
• Zen C Version: v0.4.0-108-g26bc7ce
• Compiler: GCC 15

[vremyavnikuda]

./zc run issue214.zc --typecheck
   Compiling issue214.zc
[TypeCheck] Starting semantic analysis...
error: Use of moved value 'm'
  --> issue214.zc:14:11
   |
14 |   consume(m); // Should fail: Use of moved value 'm'
   |           ^ here
   |
   = help: This type owns resources and cannot be implicitly copied
   |
   = help: Consider using a reference ('&') to borrow the value instead
[TypeCheck] Found 1 errors.

[davidscholberg]

Not sure if this is related to the fix just merged, but move semantics now seem to be broken in a different way:

struct Mover {
    val: int
}

impl Drop for Mover {
    fn drop(self) {
        println "dropping mover";
    }
}

fn consume(m: Mover) {
    println "m.val = {m.val}";
}

fn main(argc: int, argv: char**) {
    let m = Mover { val: 10 };
    if argc == 1 {
        consume(m);
    }
    else {
        consume(m);
    }
}

Error output:

error: Use of moved value 'm'
  --> move.zc:21:17
   |
21 |         consume(m);
   |                 ^ here
   |

This shouldn't count as a move violation since it's on a different code path than the first move.

[Zuhaitz-dev]

I will check this tomorrow, thank you for reporting it (:

[vremyavnikuda]

i understand that the problem is much bigger
my implementation has closed one hole, but not the ownership model
the move logic seems to be scattered across the parser and typecheck, and it behaves differently, or i don't understand something yet

[Zuhaitz-dev]

@davidscholberg your code example now passes correctly and @general-rishkin your example fails correctly.

I will close this issue.