From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-381267-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 20515 invoked by alias); 25 Jan 2012 15:03:14 -0000
Received: (qmail 20504 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Jan 2012 15:03:13 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:03:00 +0000
From: "marc.glisse at normalesup dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/51981] Missing uninitialized_move() implementation?
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:34:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: marc.glisse at normalesup dot org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-51981-4-HGHmhdWMX0@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-51981-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-51981-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-01/txt/msg02942.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51981

--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse <marc.glisse at normalesup dot org> 2012-01-25 15:02:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > It looks like it would be equivalent to uninitialized_copy with
> > make_move_iterator, not so useful then.
> 
> This makes sense, but not so obvious for novices in C++11.

I don't think novices should use anything with "uninitialized" in the name.
Notice that very few functions on iterators have a move version. vector::insert
doesn't come with a move_insert counterpart.

> If continuing in this vein, then std::move() can be substituted by std::copy()
> with input iterator wrapped into make_move_iterator().

True, although there can be subtle differences for input iterators where the
reference type is not a reference to the value_type (there's a DR about that).

> Then std::move() is not so useful :)

Indeed. The standard tries to keep a balance, and I guess move was considered
common enough to deserve its own interface, but could easily have been removed.

Note that I don't think gcc's bugzilla is the best place for such
discussions...