This is the mail archive of the gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: copy ctor not called

From: Eljay Love-Jensen <eljay at adobe dot com>
To: Jeroen Wijnhout <Jeroen dot Wijnhout at kdemail dot net>, gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 09:12:55 -0500
Subject: Re: copy ctor not called
References: <200507022024.10598.Jeroen.Wijnhout@kdemail.net><5d0f609905070305263875cb57@mail.gmail.com><200507031547.33672.Jeroen.Wijnhout@kdemail.net>

Hi Jeroen,

>To me this says, that I -fno-elide-constructors should be the default behavior. Which it isn't (at least for gcc 3.3.4).

Due to the design and evolution of C++, your expectation that "-fno-elide-constructors should be the default behavior" is not the case.

I can understand where a person would expect that to be the situation.

However, C++ standard has the elide "optimization" be the default behavior for proper C++, and the -fno-elide-constructors is a non-compliant pessimization.

Moreso, you've touched up the (surprising?) requirement for the copy constructor to be public.

These C++ anachronisms are due in large part to the design and evolution of C++.  They are legacy warts.

Sincerely,
--Eljay

Follow-Ups:
- Re: copy ctor not called
  - From: Jeroen Wijnhout
- Re: copy ctor not called
  - From: Eljay Love-Jensen

References:
- copy ctor not called
  - From: Jeroen Wijnhout
- Re: copy ctor not called
  - From: Dirk Jagdmann
- Re: copy ctor not called
  - From: Jeroen Wijnhout

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]