RE: Question on move constructor

[Graziano Servizi <Graziano.Servizi@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> I'm sorry; I made a mistake: it was the DESTRUCTOR (which IS 
provided) that
> needed to be noexcept-ed. On my system, if I didn't so, there are
> 3 moves and 3 copies (as you said), while with a noexcept DESTRUCTOR 
no copy
> occurs: only 6 moves.

Ah yes, with GCC 4.7 that is necessary.

I was testing with GCC trunk which has implicit noexcept on
destructors (as required by C++11)


OK, all is fine!
       GS