Re: [boost] [variant] Basic rvalue and C++11 features support

Subject: Re: [boost] [variant] Basic rvalue and C++11 features support
From: Paul Smith (pl.smith.mail_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-01-07 22:09:48

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 2:49 AM, Hartmut Kaiser <hartmut.kaiser_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On 1/8/13 4:14 AM, Paul Smith wrote:
>> > A recursive_wrapper is not a pointer. It's a value-like wrapper that
>> > is assumed to always contain a valid object. The move constructor
>> > should leave the moved-from recursive_wrapper in a valid state, which
>> > precludes nullifying it.
>> > That is, unless you suggest adding an "empty" state to
>> > recursive_wrapper, which doesn't sound like a very good idea.
>>
>> I disagree. That state will happen only when copying rvalues which will
>> immediately be destructed anyway. What danger do you see in that
>> situation? Example:
>>
>>     recursive_wrapper<foo> bar() {...} // function returning
>> recursive_wrapper
>>
>>     recursive_wrapper<foo> foo(bar()); // copy
>>
>> Under no circumstances will anyone get to see that "empty" state.
>> Do you see something that I don't?
>>
>> Without this move optimization (as it currently is), it is very
>> inefficient especially with big structures (e.g. tuples and fusion adapted
>> structs).
>> Without this optimization, such temporary copies will end up with two heap
>> allocations and unnecessary copying of the structures, instead of one heap
>> allocation and a simple pointer swap. That would mean the missed
>> optimization in the order of magnitudes with applications that use variant
>> heavily (e.g. Spirit).
>
> I agree 100% with Joel. Move construction means move construction - i.e. the
> source object is by definition left in a zombie state. No harm done.
> What's the point in having a move constructor which essentially is
> equivalent to a copy constructor in the first place?

Because it's not equivalent to a copy constructor. I can mutate the
source object, just not break it. The move-ctor of std::vector is much
more efficient than the copy-ctor, even though it leaves the source as
a completely valid vector. Even in the recursive_wrapper case, the
move-ctor is still (potentially) more efficient than the copy-ctor.

>
> Regards Hartmut
> ---------------
> http://boost-spirit.com
> http://stellar.cct.lsu.edu
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

--
Paul Smith