On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 19:47:24 +0200 michi7x7 <[email protected]> wrote: > Chris Vine wrote: > > Or if we are being entirely rigorous about it, just possibly when > > you construct a std::string object your compiler is dispensing with > > the copy constructor (which will be inline), as it is entitled but > > not required to do, but does not do this when constructing a > > Glib::ustring object (the constructor for which is not inline); and > > the copy constructor of std::string, called by the copy constructor > > of Glib::ustring, is leaking. > > > > This seems most unlikely but you could test for it by directly > > initialising the string (which in my opinion is better style > > anyway). > > Usually Compiles invoke the Constructor, not the Copy-Constructor > when using this style. > > So > Glib::ustring u = "Test"; > should be the same as > Glib::ustring u("Test"); > > Try it, but it should not change anything.
You probably need to re-read my post. Or at any rate, I don't think much stands between elision of the copy constructor "just possibly" not happening (my words) and "usually" happening (your words). I would go for either. Chris _______________________________________________ gtkmm-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
