Skip to main content

copy elision and copy-and-swap idiom

An updated writeup of the copy-and-swap idiom is now available on the More C++ Idioms wikibook. A comparison of two different styles of assignment operator is shown. First version accepts the parameter as pass-by-const-reference whereas the second version accepts it as pass-by-value. For some classes pass-by-value turns out to be more efficient as a copy of the object is elided when the right hand side is a rvalue.


MLeo said…
Won't that not be less efficient once R-Value references make it into mainstream?
Anonymous said…
Thats actually pretty interesting and makes alot of sense, I need to put more thought into my programming and memory management/optimization.

Btw, that site is a great resource Im suprised this is the first time I've came across it. Thanks.
Anonymous said…
Strictly speaking, in that example since the code is inline, the compiler should be able to optimize out the temporary for rvalue references in both the

String &operator=(String)
String &operator=(const String &)

cases. But if it was not inline than the first would be better.

maarten - When rvalue reference types come in C++0x, it would be the same good as the copy-in version. However rvalue references let you do similar optimizations in more different scenarios.
Sumant said…
Hi anonymous! If you are absolutely sure about that, consider adding that (with some more explanation) in the original More C++ Idioms/copy-and-swap text at an appropriate place. After all, it is a wiki.
Anonymous said…
This copy-and-swap "idiom" is the most ridiculous, inane, incomprehensible thing I have ever heard. You're doing a freaking copy. Just do the copy. Use common sense. There's no need to swap back and forth. What the hell. This is an example of people being too smart for their own good, over-complicating a very basic operation.
Sumant said…
Hi anonymous! (2nd), I agree that copy-and-swap idiom requires a programmer to put more thought than one would ideally like to. If you ain't worried about exception-safety, use the solution that your common sense tells you. However, common sense can rarely be a substitute for such a well thought, useful, and widely (STL) deployed technique that has to work not just for oversmart people but for millions of C++ programmers out there.
elision said…
Thanks for sharing this interesting post.
elisions said…
Thanks for sharing this interesting post.
Eran Smith said…
Nice thing you found but is it work properly or it need some special programming tool??

Popular Content

Unit Testing C++ Templates and Mock Injection Using Traits

Unit testing your template code comes up from time to time. (You test your templates, right?) Some templates are easy to test. No others. Sometimes it's not clear how to about injecting mock code into the template code that's under test. I've seen several reasons why code injection becomes challenging. Here I've outlined some examples below with roughly increasing code injection difficulty. Template accepts a type argument and an object of the same type by reference in constructor Template accepts a type argument. Makes a copy of the constructor argument or simply does not take one Template accepts a type argument and instantiates multiple interrelated templates without virtual functions Lets start with the easy ones. Template accepts a type argument and an object of the same type by reference in constructor This one appears straight-forward because the unit test simply instantiates the template under test with a mock type. Some assertion might be tested in

Covariance and Contravariance in C++ Standard Library

Covariance and Contravariance are concepts that come up often as you go deeper into generic programming. While designing a language that supports parametric polymorphism (e.g., templates in C++, generics in Java, C#), the language designer has a choice between Invariance, Covariance, and Contravariance when dealing with generic types. C++'s choice is "invariance". Let's look at an example. struct Vehicle {}; struct Car : Vehicle {}; std::vector<Vehicle *> vehicles; std::vector<Car *> cars; vehicles = cars; // Does not compile The above program does not compile because C++ templates are invariant. Of course, each time a C++ template is instantiated, the compiler creates a brand new type that uniquely represents that instantiation. Any other type to the same template creates another unique type that has nothing to do with the earlier one. Any two unrelated user-defined types in C++ can't be assigned to each-other by default. You have to provide a

Multi-dimensional arrays in C++11

What new can be said about multi-dimensional arrays in C++? As it turns out, quite a bit! With the advent of C++11, we get new standard library class std::array. We also get new language features, such as template aliases and variadic templates. So I'll talk about interesting ways in which they come together. It all started with a simple question of how to define a multi-dimensional std::array. It is a great example of deceptively simple things. Are the following the two arrays identical except that one is native and the other one is std::array? int native[3][4]; std::array<std::array<int, 3>, 4> arr; No! They are not. In fact, arr is more like an int[4][3]. Note the difference in the array subscripts. The native array is an array of 3 elements where every element is itself an array of 4 integers. 3 rows and 4 columns. If you want a std::array with the same layout, what you really need is: std::array<std::array<int, 4>, 3> arr; That's quite annoying for