Re: [boost] [proposal] raw move

Subject: Re: [boost] [proposal] raw move
From: Eric Niebler (eric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-08-23 10:29:17

On 8/23/2011 9:44 AM, Julian Gonggrijp wrote:
> Christopher Jefferson wrote:
> 
>> Can you first of all give a good example (with source) of where using move_raw would out-perform move assignment / constructors from C++0x, particularly in any standard library function (random_shuffle has a fairly small implementation for example). I don't really see how it will help that much.
> 
> There is a very simple reason why move_raw will outperform move 
> assignment for any non-POD type:
<snip>

Julian, you'll get more traction if you write and publish a benchmark
program that demonstrates the speed-up on some popular compilers. You
need to prove that even a smart compiler doesn't optimize away the extra
overhead.

-- 
Eric Niebler
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com