Re: [boost] [proposal] raw move (was: [interest] underlying type library)

Subject: Re: [boost] [proposal] raw move (was: [interest] underlying type library)
From: Julian Gonggrijp (j.gonggrijp_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-08-23 11:08:00

Christopher Jefferson wrote:

> Simple reasons can be misleading. Are you sure the gain is substantial enough?

No, to be honest I'm not sure. I'll write a benchmark.

However, I don't really see why you would want to include operations 
in your code of which you know beforehand that they schould be 
optimized away by the compiler. Part of the reason to adopt move 
assigments was exactly that: we don't want to insert operations in our 
code of which we know beforehand we don't want them executed.

> As well as discussing, has anyone else come up with good benchmarks (I couldn't find any in the thread you referred to).

Not that I know of.

-Julian