Since this touches on a possible standards issue, CC'ing the standards list.
On 2015-07-21 13:00, Gunnar Roth wrote:
> Hello,
> Out of curiosity i just looked at the Xcode 6.4 headers for the
> implementation of std::vector::emplace_back,
> and i don’t think there is any difference between
> push_back(QPen(Qt::red,1.5f)) and emplace_back(Qt::red,1,5f))
>
> The implementation is like this:
> template <class... _Args>
> _LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY void emplace_back(_Args&&... __args)
> { push_back ( value_type ( _VSTD::forward<_Args>(__args)... )); }
From http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/vector/vector/emplace_back/:
"Inserts a new element at the end of the vector, right after its
current last element. This new element *is constructed in place* using
args as the arguments for its constructor." (emphasis added)
From http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/vector/emplace_back:
"Appends a new element to the end of the container. The element is
constructed through std::allocator_traits::construct, which typically
*uses placement-new to construct the element in-place* at the location
provided by the container." (emphasis added)
Ergo, that implementation looks... suspicious, and *may* even be
non-conforming. (Unless push_back is doing something really funky, which
I somewhat doubt.) You may want to file a bug against that implementation.
@std-discussion, since I don't have a copy of the standardese handy, is
in-place behavior (or possibly rather use of 'std::a_t::construct')
*required* for standards conformance, or is it just QoI? (Is there any
way that the above implementation can be doing in-place construction?)
--
Matthew
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
