[boost] Re: move semantics

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-04-18 18:31:46

Also tested now on Linux:

gcc 3.2.2, 3.4.0-20031231(experimental) - 0 suboptimal copies

intel 7, 8                              - 0/1 suboptimal copies

David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:

> Results
> -------
>
> This code has been tested on win32 with the following compilers.
> Where the techniques differ, results are shown as
> #technique1/#technique2.
>
> como-win32              3 suboptimal copies in strict mode.  With
>                         -DBOOST_IMPLICIT_MOVE_CTOR_FOR_COPYABLE_TYPES
>                         in non-strict mode, 0/1 suboptimal copies
>                         with 1/3 warnings.
>
> cwpro8                  0/1 suboptimal copies
>
> gcc 2.95.3, 3.2, 3.3.1  0 suboptimal copies
>
> bcc564                  2/? suboptimal copies
>                         <<< can't handle technique 2 yet >>>
>
> msvc 6, 7, 7.1          0 suboptimal copies (**)
>
>                         vc7 issues a couple of bogus warnings (C4927)
>
> intel8                  0/1 suboptimal copies (**)
>
> intel5 intel6 intel7    2 suboptimal copies (**)
>
>
> (**) On these compilers, non-copyability isn't automatically inherited
>      from movable<T>, i.e. the boost::noncopyable trick doesn't
>      work. Rvalues are silently bound to non-const references.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com