> Hi Jeroen, > >>To me this says, that I -fno-elide-constructors should be the default >> behavior. Which it isn't (at least for gcc 3.3.4). > > Due to the design and evolution of C++, your expectation that > "-fno-elide-constructors should be the default behavior" is not the case. > > I can understand where a person would expect that to be the situation. > > However, C++ standard has the elide "optimization" be the default behavior > for proper C++, and the -fno-elide-constructors is a non-compliant > pessimization. Hmm, I have the 2005 edition of "C++ Primer", which I kind of trusted because one of the authors was involved in the C++ ISO standards committee. They write in section 13.1 (page 477): "Copy-initialization always involves the copy constructor". According to your statement they are wrong. > Moreso, you've touched up the (surprising?) requirement for the copy > constructor to be public. > > These C++ anachronisms are due in large part to the design and evolution > of C++. They are legacy warts. Thanks for your explanation. best, Jeroen
