Boost

boost@lists.boost.org

May 2013

173 participants
202 discussions

Re: [boost] [operators] moving forward use return by reference for compilers with proper support?
by Andrew Ho 01 May '13

01 May '13

> They do NOT apply to this scenario: > > X&& func(X&& x) { return std::move(x); } > const X& r3 = func(temporary()); // DANGLING REFERENCE > X&& r4 = func(temporary()); // DANGLING REFERENCE Hmm, I see. sub-clause of 12.2 clause 5: > The lifetime of a temporary bound to the returned value in a function return statement (6.6.3) is not extended; the temporary is destroyed at the end of the full-expression in the return statement. I presume there must be some implementation detail on why a returned temporaries' lifetime can't be extended. Too bad, looks like return by value is the best option available.

1 0

[operators] moving forward use return by reference for compilers with proper support?
by Andrew Ho 01 May '13

01 May '13

Following some feedback I got from MS about the disparity between VS2012 and GCC/Clang in how some the lifetimes of temporaries are handled, it appears that going forward (possibly C++14) overloading operators in the same fashion as Dfrey operators should be safe. For reference, these overloads for a single argument commutative operator are: T operator OP(const T&, const T&); T&& operator OP( T&& lhs, const T& rhs); T&& operator OP( const T& lhs, T&& rhs); T&& operator OP( T&& lhs, T&& rhs); They referred me to http://www.open- std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3337.pdf (draft of C++ standard), which in section 12.2, clause 5 says that a temporary's lifetime is extended to the lifetime of the reference it is bound to. I checked draft n3376 (latest publicly available draft as of today), and the same clause was present. This is the current behavior in VS2012 and it's likely that future compilers will support this as well. Should we start tracking which compilers do exhibit this behavior in Boost.Config and use the return by rvalue ref code if proper compiler support is available? I know these are just working drafts and can change in the future, but I can't think of a reason why they would remove this clause from the C++14 standard, or of any test cases which would cause a program to fail assuming this clause is properly implemented. We'll have to provide an implementation which supports return by value as well for compilers which don't support this clause, and possibly a third implementation for compilers which don't support move semantics at all, though I have demonstrated that Boost.Move can be used to merge these latter cases.

2 1

Jump to page: