From 9032547743269706910 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,f5d433881cc29cff X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public From: Jason Merrill Subject: Re: Named return value optimisation- reprise. Date: 1997/06/16 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 248861486 References: <33a345bf.7425526@news.ipswich.gil.com.au> <33A478C1.329@acm.org> X-Original-Date: 16 Jun 1997 01:38:01 -0700 Organization: Cygnus Solutions, Sunnyvale, CA X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.std.c++ iQBFAgUBM6Vw9OEDnX0m9pzZAQGp4QGAgVbMGrxLN+v2dufx5gWsfoH9eGEUvQkV Mwp7hSOoN/ZPsBO28ptR9OPT7IzXjeFZ =Veem Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Originator: fjh@murlibobo.cs.mu.OZ.AU >>>>> Pete Becker writes: > Skipping the copy constructor is not legal. The object A consists of > the storage allocated for A itself and the array 'a'. That's an unusual definition of 'object', which does not match the definition in [intro.object]. I thought we discussed this before and decided that 12.8 was referring to the actual object itself, not the object and everything it points to. So the example would produce surprising results in the presence of the RVO. But I'm OK with that. I'm comfortable saying that playing games with references and values in the same class, and relying on the copy constructor to switch between them, is asking for trouble. Jason --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles: try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ] [ Policy: http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html ] [ Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu ]