Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost.Move] [Boost.Container] Compiling with older versions of Boost and Performance
From: Thomas Klimpel (Thomas.Klimpel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-01-10 12:45:15
THOMAS JORDAN wrote:
> Thanks, yes that would be the sensible way to proceed.
> My other question was, though -
> Does Boost::Move library rely on compiler optimisations of
> copy-elision/return value optimisation, as is the case with the Adobe
> Source Library (ASL) Move library, for example. The reason I ask is
> that I
> suspect the compiler I want to target is not very good at said
> optimisations. Or are there any other known factors which could
> mitigate
> against its effectiveness for a. n. other compiler?
Note the RVO (return value optimization) is a feature that is either working or not, similarly to tail recursion in functional languages. This is unlike URVO (unnamed return value optimization), which depends on the code analysis capabilities of a optimizer. (Well, some compilers used to turn off RVO in debug mode, but this should no longer be the case.)
Writing tests to check whether RVO is implemented is easy. I guess you have a pretty good chance that even your compiler supports RVO (so I guess the ASL Move library would work). But this doesn't mean that it will be easy to get Boost.Move working with your compiler.
Regards,
Thomas