Re: Named Return Value Extension Proposal

["E. Robert Tisdale" <edwin at netwood dot net>]

Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:

> I don't know what will be decided,
> but let me throw my 0.02 euros in there.
> I certainly don't minimize the importance of compiler level optimizations.
> But it's my opinion that there are ISO C++ language features--
> not optimizations-- that need to be fixed or implemented in the compiler.
> That already is a lot of work to do.  I'm not particularly interested
> in seeing a lot of work spent in implementing nonstandard features,
> that will probably badly interact with ISO C++,
> whereas there are more fundamental topics waiting to be addressed.
>
> So my proposal will be: let's first catch up the Standard,
> then we'll address optimizations issues.
>
> Just because a particular optimization is _permitted_
> doesn't mean that the compiler *should* implement it,
> particularly when the compiler is trying hard to get semantics right.

Gaby, You and I will both grow very old and die
before this compiler catches up with the standard.
I don't think that it is too unreasonable for me and other users
to expect the compiler to produce reasonably fast and efficient code
without hacking our source to work around a deficient optimizer.

It appears from the reply by Jason Merrill <jason@cygnus.com>
to the "elided copy constructors" thread that it will be a very long time
before the changes can be made to implement the optimizations
permitted by the standard.  I am simply proposing a stop gap
to carry us through until it is possible to implement the optimizations.

I have taken some pain to ensure that the proposed extensions
will not interact badly with the ANSI/ISO C++ standard.
Please let us know if you see something wrong that I don't see.

> just my 0.02 euros.

I'll see your 0.02 euros and raise you $0.02

E. Robert Tisdale <edwin@netwood.net>