Article View: comp.std.c++
Article #2165Why not adopt gcc's "return" optimization?
From: David Arnstein
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 19:56
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 19:56
19 lines
1171 bytes
1171 bytes
Gcc's "return" extension to c++ looks like this:
Integer operator+ (const Integer& x, const Integer& y) return r
{
add(x, y, r);
}
The "return r" clause in the first line prevents a copy of an Integer
object on function return.
Has the committee considered this extension? It seems so sensible
that I wonder why it was never adopted.
--
David Arnstein
arnstein@netcom.com
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu. The moderation policy
is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<arnsteinDG8zHt.I0J@netcom.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM!taumet!clamageShow Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM!taumet!clamage From: arnstein@netcom.com (David Arnstein) Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Why not adopt gcc's "return" optimization? Date: 10 Oct 1995 19:56:14 GMT Organization: North Coast Nest And Noodle Inn Approved: clamage@eng.sun.com (comp.std.c++) Message-ID: <arnsteinDG8zHt.I0J@netcom.com> Reply-To: arnstein@netcom.com NNTP-Posting-Host: taumet.eng.sun.com Content-Type: text Apparently-To: comp-std-c++@uunet.uu.net Content-Length: 402 X-Lines: 15 Originator: clamage@taumet