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: [g++] make_pair inlining failure?

From: Marc Glisse <marc dot glisse at inria dot fr>
To: Robert Jones <robertgbjones at gmail dot com>
Cc: gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 12:55:11 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: [g++] make_pair inlining failure?
References: <COL107-W473B750869EF85B2E10AFF0B20@phx.gbl> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1111281537180.2530@laptop-mg.saclay.inria.fr> <CAG3ZVmrJATrLSFcM_ciZ9gMEHDTuvZQwSfovfEnq7sFqmxESNw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1111291026550.2529@laptop-mg.saclay.inria.fr> <CAG3ZVmpHHM+585VOzTDthymaYCuwUA2HxkkAE5z8x-GxW1cPjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-to: gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org

On Tue, 29 Nov 2011, Robert Jones wrote:

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Marc Glisse <marc.glisse@inria.fr> wrote:
And those examples are
basically the only cases where copy elision is allowed. Yes, some of us
would like to change that.
Change it to more permissive of copy elision?

Yes. Note that it wouldn't always be easy for the compiler and it would likely only pick a few low hanging fruits. I am not sure that pair conversion is hanging quite low enough... But allowing it is a necessary first step.

--
Marc Glisse

References:
- [g++] make_pair inlining failure?
  - From: John Doe
- Re: [g++] make_pair inlining failure?
  - From: Marc Glisse
- Re: [g++] make_pair inlining failure?
  - From: Robert Jones
- Re: [g++] make_pair inlining failure?
  - From: Marc Glisse
- Re: [g++] make_pair inlining failure?
  - From: Robert Jones

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