Subject: Re: [boost] [move] auto-generated operator=
From: Ion GaztaÃ±aga (igaztanaga_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-09-08 05:52:32
David Abrahams escribiÃ³:
>> Well, maybe benefits don't outweigh problems... I added that overload so that
>> assignment moves rvalues instead of copying them,
In the first version of the library we had two overloads ("const T &"
and "rv<T> &") for copy/move constructor and assignments. But if T&
operator=(const T&) is defined then:
//Copy assignment called instead of move-assignment!
t = produce();
This is suboptimal for assignments, because a move is replaced with a
copy. In theory this also happens for copy-constructors but fortunately
RVO is a much better approach and in practice this problem only happens
//In theory old approach would also call the copy constructor
//but nearly all modern compilers use RVO.
That was the state of the library when I first proposed it. Then Klaus
Trindle proposed an alternative overload set to catch non-const rvalues
using "const rv<T> &" (the additional ovreloads "were rv<T> &" and "T&"
--> note that is non-const) and that solves the assignment problem:
However, this approach requires defining a non-const assignment
operator, so we have a new problem: compiler-generated copy assignment
takes the argument as non-const T &.
So right know I have two options: the old approach that produces
suboptimal assignments from non-const rvalues and the newer one that is
optimal but hurts the compiler generated copy assignment.
We need a third alternative: a new overload set that maintains "const T
&" and properly catches non-const rvalues.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk