28 May
2010
28 May
'10
5:16 p.m.
At Fri, 28 May 2010 18:29:13 +0200, Thomas Klimpel wrote:
but a simple programmer error in "X X::create()" that would have a significant performance penalty even if the compiler/linker would accept the code.
There is no implementation of copy ctor in the original example. How compiler/linker could accept the code? What "performance penalty" you are talking about?
I'm talking about the BOOST_COPYABLE_AND_MOVABLE case. Most compilers won't do RVO for code written like "X X::create()".
You are claiming that some aspect of that signature causes RVO not to happen? What aspect? -- Dave Abrahams Meet me at BoostCon: http://www.boostcon.com BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com