[Development] Question about QCoreApplicationData::*_libpaths
thiago.macieira at intel.com
Mon Jan 18 20:28:16 CET 2016
On Monday 18 January 2016 13:57:23 Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> I'll still assert that C++ needs relocatability :-).
The discussion on std-proposals was quite favourable to adding the concept.
Just note that it mutated from "relocatable" to "destructive move", which
isn't the same thing.
Here's what a vector could when resizing do for:
a) regular type
allocate new block, copy-construct then destroy each element, free old block
b) regular type with move constructor
ditto, but move-construct instead
c) regular type with noexcept move constructor
ditto, but like Peppe said, it can be done in a mass operation that cannot
throw. TBH, I don't see how this implementation would differ from b. In fact,
the code would be the same as a and b and I'd rely on the compiler optimising
the rollback code away.
d) destructive movable
allocate the new block, move-destroy each element (old element is discarded),
free old block
Relocatable would be an extension to the destructive move: trivially
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
More information about the Development