TechQA.

Question

C++11 tuple with copy elision or move semantic

score 727 · Answer 1 · 2024-11-24 17:07:20

1

Answer

727

Views

C++11 tuple with copy elision or move semantic

727 views Asked by Huy Le At 24 November 2024 at 17:07

score 924 · Answer 2 · 2024-11-18 22:39:30

Copy constructor not called when initializing an object with return value of a function

924 views Asked by crisron At 18 November 2024 at 22:39

score 163 · Answer 3 · 2024-11-19 16:15:52

Copy constructor not called when returning from overloaded + operator to overloaded = operator

163 views Asked by tapananand At 19 November 2024 at 16:15

score 838 · Answer 4 · 2013-12-14 23:51:12

Copy/move elision versus explicitly deleted copy/move constructors

838 views Asked by CodeBricks At 14 December 2013 at 23:51

score 625 · Answer 5 · 2017-09-06 09:47:39

Is copy/move elision allowed to make a program using deleted functions well-formed?

625 views Asked by user7860670 At 06 September 2017 at 09:47

score 1126 · Answer 6 · 2013-08-30 22:37:36

Why RVO and NRVO are not made obligatory by the standard?

1.1k views Asked by lizarisk At 30 August 2013 at 22:37

score 281 · Answer 7 · 2013-09-07 19:12:19

In what cases can't a modern day compiler apply the NRVO optimization for functions?

281 views Asked by bjackfly At 07 September 2013 at 19:12

score 1510 · Answer 8 · 2012-01-17 06:24:29

Copy constructor elision?

1.5k views Asked by Chubsdad At 17 January 2012 at 06:24

score 3764 · Answer 9 · 2013-12-19 05:41:01

GCC NRVO/RVO warning

3.7k views Asked by Tomilov Anatoliy At 19 December 2013 at 05:41

score 356 · Answer 10 · 2014-12-02 12:38:40

gcc and clang both elide the call to the move constructor in the snippet below. Is this correct?

356 views Asked by Belloc At 02 December 2014 at 12:38

TechQA.

List Question

C++11 tuple with copy elision or move semantic

Copy constructor not called when initializing an object with return value of a function

Copy constructor not called when returning from overloaded + operator to overloaded = operator

Copy/move elision versus explicitly deleted copy/move constructors

Is copy/move elision allowed to make a program using deleted functions well-formed?

Why RVO and NRVO are not made obligatory by the standard?

In what cases can't a modern day compiler apply the NRVO optimization for functions?

Copy constructor elision?

GCC NRVO/RVO warning

gcc and clang both elide the call to the move constructor in the snippet below. Is this correct?

Popular Questions

Popular Tags

Trending Questions