AMDG Ion Gaztañaga wrote:
On 23/05/2010 14:38, Neil Groves wrote:
So am I correct in stating that the move emulation is therefore fundamentally relying upon undefined behaviour with no performant alternative that uses the same interface?
It seems so, but I'm not sure. We'll need to confirm this with a language expert. If the problem is GCC, we can workaround it. Hopefully move emulation works nearly for all compilers and in the future all of them will have rvalus references, so I don't think we have a big issue here.
I'm wondering whether it would be better to use something like template<class T> struct rv { T* impl; operator const T&() const; }; template<class T> T& unwrap_rv(rv<T>&); I know the interface isn't quite as nice, and there will be more cases where overload resolution needs a hand, but it seems safer. In Christ, Steven Watanabe