Boost logo

Boost :

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 <> 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
> move_iterator
> and dispatch to the ones in std::? As it is, they'll miss
> optimizations
> 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.
> using
> memcpy where with move_iterators wrapped around pointers to PODs,
> etc.,
> 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, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at