> I don't think that's right. In C++03, unique_ptr has a > unique_ptr(unique_ptr&) constructor. And the C++03 std::move is: > > template<typename T> T &move(T &v) { return v; } > > So... the "explicitly moved for C++03" call to std::move in map appears to > also be redundant (and pessimizing) in C++03. In fact, in C++03, std::move > > appears to *always* be a no-op.
I don't think unique_ptr provides the constructor you mention. The definition of move used in C++03 for unique_ptr is unique_ptr move(unique_ptr& u) { return unique_ptr(__rv<unique_ptr>(u)); } unique_ptr provides a constructor of the form `unique_ptr(__rv<unique_ptr>&). It seems like this dance is done to force copy elision to take place. /Eric On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Richard Smith <rich...@metafoo.co.uk> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Eric Fiselier <e...@efcs.ca> wrote: >> >> EricWF added a comment. >> >> Thanks for the patch. I ran into this issue the other day and I'm glad to >> see it fixed. >> >> A little rational: The explicit move's are needed in order to "move" a >> `unique_ptr` in C++03. There is a special definition of `std::move` in >> memory at line 3100 that performs some hacks to make `unique_ptr` movable. I >> don't think any other classes benefit from the "explicit move" in C++03. > > > I don't think that's right. In C++03, unique_ptr has a > unique_ptr(unique_ptr&) constructor. And the C++03 std::move is: > > template<typename T> T &move(T &v) { return v; } > > So... the "explicitly moved for C++03" call to std::move in map appears to > also be redundant (and pessimizing) in C++03. In fact, in C++03, std::move > appears to *always* be a no-op. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits