From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-help-return-54595-listarch-gcc-help=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 5682 invoked by alias); 19 Dec 2013 08:31:56 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-help.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 5672 invoked by uid 89); 19 Dec 2013 08:31:55 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO: mail-la0-f51.google.com
Received: from mail-la0-f51.google.com (HELO mail-la0-f51.google.com) (209.85.215.51) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 08:31:24 +0000
Received: by mail-la0-f51.google.com with SMTP id ec20so303994lab.38        for <gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 00:31:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.152.7.67 with SMTP id h3mr61429laa.29.1387441881175;        Thu, 19 Dec 2013 00:31:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [130.233.179.5] ([130.233.179.5])        by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id bl6sm1850768lbb.5.2013.12.19.00.31.19        for <gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);        Thu, 19 Dec 2013 00:31:20 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <52B2AED7.9090203@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 08:31:00 -0000
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Henrik_Mannerstr=F6m?= <henrik.mannerstrom@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: RVO (let the compiler copy)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2013-12/txt/msg00132.txt.bz2

This question came up on SO (
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7320520/optimizing-the-number-of-constructor-calls)
and I was baffled since it went against the mantra "let the compiler do
the copying". Do you have an idea of what is going on? Why is the
commented version of operator+ worse? I compile with g++ -std=gnu++11
-Wall -Wextra -pedantic -O2  mwe.cc

BR,
Henrik

#include <iostream>

struct Imaginary {
  Imaginary(int a_, int b_) : a(a_), b(b_) {
    std::cout << "int/int ctor" << std::endl;
  };
 
  Imaginary(Imaginary const & orig) {
    a = orig.a;
    b = orig.b;
    std::cout << "Copy ctor (" << a << ',' << b << ')' << std::endl;
  }

  Imaginary & append(Imaginary const & rhs) {
    a = 10 * a + rhs.a;
    b = 10 * b + rhs.b;
    return *this;
  }

  int a;
  int b;
};

/* This calls the copy constructor once */
Imaginary operator+(Imaginary const & lhs, Imaginary const & rhs) {
  Imaginary tmp(lhs);
  tmp.append(rhs);
  return tmp;
}

/* This calls the copy constructor twice
Imaginary operator+(Imaginary lhs, Imaginary const & rhs) {
  lhs.append(rhs);
  return lhs;
}
*/

int main()
{
    Imaginary x(1, 1);
    Imaginary y(2, 1);

    Imaginary c = x + y;
    return c.a;
}