On Wednesday 04 February 2015 12:47:42 Matthew Woehlke wrote: > However, explicit defaulting is still interesting for the *default* > constructor. (See > https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dn457344.aspx; apparently in > MSVC at least there are advantages to an explicitly defaulted default > constructor vs. an empty-bodied default constructor.)
A defaulted constructor can be trivial, whereas the empty-body one can't. That has impact on whether the type itself is trivial and can be passed in registers. Which in turn means we can't leave this to the compiler, as it might break the ABI. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
