Workshop and Discussion Group

TBD

Join or login to comment.

  • Mehdi A.

    About RVO and the fact that is optional for the compiler, I have[masked] in the standard (N3337):

    "When certain criteria are met, an implementation is allowed to omit the copy/move construction of a class
    object, even if the copy/move constructor and/or destructor for the object have side effects. In such cases, the implementation treats the source and target of the omitted copy/move operation as simply two different ways of referring to the same object, and the destruction of that object occurs at the later of the times when the two objects would have been destroyed without the optimization.123 This elision of copy/move operations, called copy elision, is permitted in the following circumstances (which may be combined to eliminate multiple copies):
    ....
    "

    November 21, 2013

    • Mehdi A.

      Thanks Arthur! I can't wait to see it :)

      November 21, 2013

    • Mehdi A.

      About explicit std::move() and return statement, Jon was right: there is a difference when you add the (implicit) std::move, it prevents NRVO.
      Found on SO: http://stackoverflow....­
      It mentions that Stephan T. Lavavej talked about this at Going Native 2013, at 38:04: http://channel9.msdn....­

      November 21, 2013

  • Dane Van D.

    Arthur, that was awesome. Would you mind pointing me to the code?

    November 21, 2013

  • Jon K.

    A great lightening talk and a great discussion.

    November 20, 2013

  • gary p.

    I am stuck in Santa Cruz and cannot get over the hill in time for the meeting.

    November 20, 2013

  • Arthur O.

    I'll be presenting (or at least have available to present) a lightning talk on "UTF-8 to Latin-1 at compile time": a toy example of constexpr metaprogramming. I'm still soliciting topics for newbie-oriented talks, if anyone has ideas.

    November 19, 2013

    • Dane Van D.

      My understanding is that implicit move construction occurs in exactly the same context as RVO copy elision. My comment was intended to ask whether compilers should warn in the case of copy construction during return-by-value if the move constructor was not explicitly deleted.

      November 20, 2013

    • Mehdi A.

      I think the difference is that RVO is an option for the compiler while involving the move constructor instead of the copy constructor is not. If you are present this evening I would be glad to discuss about it :)

      November 20, 2013

  • Jared

    And: pizza's on me tonight since I so badly lost the "reserve" bet last time!

    November 20, 2013

    • Dane Van D.

      Let's just pass the hat again :)

      November 20, 2013

    • Jon K.

      Passing the hat works for me. If Jared wants to be generous when it comes to him, I'm okay with that. :)

      November 20, 2013

  • Jon K.

    Arthur, I'm looking forward to seeing this. It is an impressive accomplishment.

    November 19, 2013

6 went

Our Sponsors

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Create your own Meetup Group

Get started Learn more
Henry

I decided to start Reno Motorcycle Riders Group because I wanted to be part of a group of people who enjoyed my passion... I was excited and nervous. Our group has grown by leaps and bounds. I never thought it would be this big.

Henry, started Reno Motorcycle Riders

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy