Subject: Re: [boost] More Move notes
From: Christopher Jefferson (chris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-09-07 18:20:23
On 7 Sep 2009, at 22:56, David Abrahams wrote:
> on Mon Sep 07 2009, David Abrahams <dave-AT-boostpro.com> wrote:
>> Hi Ion,
>> A few things I noticed looking through move.hpp in the sandbox
> Also, I wonder if the algorithms in move.hpp shouldn't use
> and dispatch to the ones in std::? As it is, they'll miss
> that may be in the library such as loop unrolling, and this seems
> like a
> good opportunity to offload code and maintenance work.
> The rvalue-enabled libstdc++ has still further optimizations, e.g.
> memcpy where with move_iterators wrapped around pointers to PODs,
> but while that's an efficiency win, trying to do something like that
> would also increase your code size, so maybe you don't want to.
Very sorry I haven't looked at move.hpp, I'll try to if I had time.
I'd hoped the move simulation would, in a compiler which supported
everything natively, just use proper rvalue-references and the
compiler's rvalue-aware standard library and containers, so it could
be used just as a bridge until rvalue support was standard. Is that
not the case?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk