Izaron added a comment. In D119792#3389126 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D119792#3389126>, @erichkeane wrote:
> So P2025 <https://reviews.llvm.org/P2025> has not successfully made it > through EWG, so this would have to be under a 'flag'. Also, I believe this > will end up being applied to C++23, so it would have to be under a C++23 > flag, even when we make it a default behavior. I felt like this particular patch don't really need to wait until the paper make it to C++XX. **RVO** (unnamed return value optimization), a simpler optimization, has been used for a very very long time, before they made it mandatory in C++17 (effectively just describing the status quo in the Standard). The paper contains an exhaustive set of NRVO use-cases. **13** out of **20** cases are already implemented in Clang, and the current patch makes it **17** out of **20**. I could send a patch without mentioning the paper at all, but it would be harder to track progress. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D119792/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D119792 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
