https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61909
--- Comment #4 from lukeocamden at gmail dot com --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3) > (In reply to lukeocamden from comment #2) > > (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1) > > > This is by design. > > > > I don't really follow - do you mean a consequence of the design, or does the > > standard mandate copying/moving the object into the heap, or does using the > > heap have some other benefit? > > None of the above. > > I mean the author of our std::function intentionally chose to only avoid the > heap for function pointers > > /** > * Trait identifying "location-invariant" types, meaning that the > * address of the object (or any of its members) will not escape. > * Also implies a trivial copy constructor and assignment operator. > */ If this doesn't offer a clear advantage, should I try to come up with a patch to support small objects too?
