Skip Navigation
On harmful overuse of std::move - The Old New Thing
  • @lysdexic You claimed otherwise:
    "
    These std::move invocations are harmless, as they only cast objects to their rvalue reference.
    "
    If you were right, we wouldn't have the motivation to look at this in EWG.

  • On harmful overuse of std::move - The Old New Thing
  • @lysdexic @QuadriLiteral Eh, no. Really. Changing the value category disables RVO

  • On harmful overuse of std::move - The Old New Thing
  • @QuadriLiteral @lysdexic We've been looking at a paper just recently in Kona, where the author proposed to not penalize "unfortunate" uses of std::move. I think this is user friendly and you might imagine what I've been voting for.

  • Deleted
    *Permanently Deleted*
  • @deadcream @rmam @addie @Pitri AFAICS, the number of *paid* compiler developers working on modules is larger in the Clang team (2) than in the MSVC team (1).

  • Deleted
    *Permanently Deleted*
  • @addie @rmam
    " modules, as specified, were impossible for anyone to implement."
    Let me fix: impossible for anyone except Clang and MSVC.

  • Deleted
    *Permanently Deleted*
  • @rmam Older versions of the C++ standard are *withdrawn*.

  • Deleted
    *Permanently Deleted*
  • @Redkey @rmam I assume you're aware of the fact that there exists *only one* C++ standard at a time (C++20 today, C++23 later this year).

    You probably mean
    * using reduced feature sets
    * compiling with non-conforming compilers

    But this might sound less nice than "using an obsolete standard xyz". I'm totally aware why large swaths of the industry are stuck in the past for well-motivated reasons.

  • DanielaKEngert Dani (:cxx: modules addict) @hachyderm.io

    C++ nerd, WG21, INFJ, electrical engineer, she/her, science connoisseur, jazz addict @DanielaKEngert

    Posts 0
    Comments 9