Re: [v3] Less noexcept

[Marc Glisse <marc dot glisse at inria dot fr>]

On Mon, 23 Sep 2013, Paolo Carlini wrote:

> Hi again,
> > > It is funny that with fully dynamic strings, the copy constructor is 
> > > "better" than the move constructor: faster, doesn't throw, etc. I think we 
> > > should remove the move constructor in that case, or at least make it act 
> > > the same as the copy constructor. I didn't mark the copy constructor as 
> > > noexcept, but without checking the code it seems likely we could.

I took a look at the code. First I got a headache because of the allocator 
stuff. And once the paracetamol started helping, I noticed that the 
is_leaked mechanism means it can throw anyway, so I was wrong.

> > We could, but in my opinion fiddling with those isn't worth the trouble, 
> > because the whole "fully dynamic string" thing is just a workaround for 
> > issues of the current reference counted implementation vs the statically 
> > allocated empty string on some targets.
> Well, I have a second (practical) thought about this part. If you are willing 
> to spend a little more time on this, and can confirm your preliminary 
> analysis about copy-constructor vs move-constructor, first blush it 
> definitely makes sense to me, I'm certainly not against your proposal of 
> having the move-constructor identical to the copy-constructor in that case. 
> In 4.9.x some targets, not Linux, would benefit from it.

Sorry.

--
Marc Glisse