From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-421031-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 25670 invoked by alias); 26 Apr 2013 13:45:39 -0000
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
Received: (qmail 25624 invoked by uid 48); 26 Apr 2013 13:45:36 -0000
From: "thiago at kde dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/57064] [clarification requested] Which overload with ref-qualifier should be called?
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 13:45:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: thiago at kde dot org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: jason at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.8.1
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-57064-4-XFvmBH4p6D@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-57064-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-57064-4@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
X-SW-Source: 2013-04/txt/msg02176.txt.bz2


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57064

--- Comment #16 from Thiago Macieira <thiago at kde dot org> 2013-04-26 13:45:35 UTC ---
Thanks for the hint.

However, returning an rvalue, even if moved-onto, will generate code for the
destructor. It's not a matter of efficiency, just of code size.

Anyway, I'll do some benchmarks, after I figure out how to work around the
binary compatibility break imposed by having the & in the function that already
existed.