Re: [Boost-users] [Signals\Signals2] Move semantics

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [Signals\Signals2] Move semantics
From: Christopher Jefferson (chris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-08-29 09:18:57

On 29 Aug 2011, at 14:04, Szymon Gatner wrote:

> 2011/8/27 Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>:
>> 
>> No, it's the easiest way to get move assignment semantically correct,
>> but not "the preferred way."  At least, it's not universally preferred.
>> See http://cpp-next.com/archive/2009/09/your-next-assignment/
>> 
> 
> Thanks, great read! I am still trying to fully understand all implications of
> move semantics. For example: is std/boost::move() killer of potential RVO?
> 
> I mean:
> 
> std::vector<int> getNumbers()
> {
>  std::vector<int> ret;
> 
>  // fill data
> 
>  return move(ret) // will that kill potential (N)RVO?
> }

std::move does not hurt RVO in compilers I have tried it in. boost::move, when emulating move semantics in C++03, does seem to confuse RVO in some situations (sorry if that is a bit vague, I did not do a full and complete investigation).

Chris