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 e) relocatable realloc Relocatable would be an extension to the destructive move: trivially destructible movable. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
