Richard Li wrote:
Right, page 211 of the C++ standard (2003) explains when copy-ctor and
dtor are allowed to be optimized away. But the two circumstances are
both like this:
A is constructed; A is copy-constructed to B; A is destructed
Here A is a temporary object in some sense, and the
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 01:17:58PM -0500, Aaron W. LaFramboise wrote:
I think the biggest problem here is that GCC will not elide calls to the
allocator. This is a subject of some controversy--even though its
probably difficult to do such optimization anyway. It's not quite clear
that
gcc version 4.1.2 20070502 (Red Hat 4.1.2-12)
I noticed the following code
=== version 1:
templatetypename a_t, typename b_t
inline a_t append (a_t a, b_t const b) {
a.insert (a.end(), b.begin(), b.end());
return a;
}
=== version 2:
templatetypename a_t, typename b_t
inline void append (a_t
In version 1, the return type is a_t, so a class construction is
required there (the caller will then destruct the returned object).
Construction and destruction can have side effects, so the compiler
would not drop them. For the following code,
templatetypename a_t, typename b_t
inline a_t
Right, page 211 of the C++ standard (2003) explains when copy-ctor and
dtor are allowed to be optimized away. But the two circumstances are
both like this:
A is constructed; A is copy-constructed to B; A is destructed
Here A is a temporary object in some sense, and the standard allows
for directly
