WantSpeed?PassbyValue.

C++Next
WantSpeed?PassbyValue.
Thisentryispartofaseries,RValueReferences:MovingForward

Behonest:howdoesthefollowingcodemakeyoufeel?
std::vector<std::string>get_names();

std::vector<std::string>constnames=get_names();
Frankly,eventhoughIshouldknowbetter,itmakesmenervous.Inprinciple,whenget_names()returns,we
havetocopyavectorofstrings.Then,weneedtocopyitagainwhenweinitializenames,andweneedto
destroythefirstcopy.IfthereareNstringsinthevector,eachcopycouldrequireasmanyasN+1memory
allocationsandawholeslewofcacheunfriendlydataaccessesasthestringcontentsarecopied.
Ratherthanconfrontthatsortofanxiety,Iveoftenfallenbackonpassbyreferencetoavoidneedlesscopies:
get_names(std::vector<std::string>&out_param);

std::vector<std::string>names;
get_names(names);
Unfortunately,thisapproachisfarfromideal.
Thecodegrewby150%
Wevehadtodropconstnessbecauseweremutatingnames.
Asfunctionalprogrammersliketoremindus,mutationmakescodemorecomplextoreasonaboutby
underminingreferentialtransparencyandequationalreasoning.
Wenolongerhavestrictvaluesemantics1fornames.
Butisitreallynecessarytomessupourcodeinthiswaytogainefficiency?Fortunately,theanswerturnsoutto
beno(andespeciallynotifyouareusingC++0x).Thisarticleisthefirstinaseriesthatexploresrvaluesand
theirimpliciationsforefficientvaluesemanticsinC++.

RValues
Rvaluesareexpressionsthatcreateanonymoustemporaryobjects.Thenamervaluereferstothefactthatan
rvalueexpressionofbuiltintypecanonlyappearontherighthandsideofanassignment.Unlikelvalues,which,
whennonconst,canalwaysbeusedonthelefthandsideofanassignment,rvalueexpressionsyieldobjects
withoutanypersistentidentitytoassigninto.2
Theimportantthingaboutanonymoustemporariesforourpurposes,though,isthattheycanonlybeusedonce
inanexpression.Howcouldyoupossiblyrefertosuchanobjectasecondtime?Itdoesnthaveaname(thus,
anonymous)andafterthefullexpressionisevaluated,theobjectisdestroyed(thus,temporary)!
Onceyouknowyouarecopyingfromanrvalue,then,itshouldbepossibletostealtheexpensivetocopy

resourcesfromthesourceobjectandusetheminthetargetobjectwithoutanyonenoticing.Inthiscasethat
wouldmeantransferringownershipofthesourcevectorsdynamicallyallocatedarrayofstringstothetarget
vector.Ifwecouldsomehowgetthecompilertoexecutethatmoveoperationforus,itwouldbecheapalmost
freetoinitializenamesfromavectorreturnedbyvalue.
Thatwouldtakecareofthesecondexpensivecopy,butwhataboutthefirst?Whenget_namesreturns,in
principle,ithastocopythefunctionsreturnvaluefromtheinsideofthefunctiontotheoutside.Well,itturnsout
thatreturnvalueshavethesamepropertyasanonymoustemporaries:theyareabouttobedestroyed,and
wontbeusedagain.So,wecouldeliminatethefirstexpensivecopyinthesameway,transferringthe
resourcesfromthereturnvalueontheinsideofthefunctiontotheanonymoustemporaryseenbythecaller.

CopyElisionandtheRVO
ThereasonIkeptwritingabovethatcopiesweremadeinprincipleisthatthecompilerisactuallyallowedto
performsomeoptimizationsbasedonthesameprincipleswevejustdiscussed.Thisclassofoptimizationsis
knownformallyascopyelision.Forexample,intheReturnValueOptimization(RVO),thecallingfunction
allocatesspaceforthereturnvalueonitsstack,andpassestheaddressofthatmemorytothecallee.The
calleecanthenconstructareturnvaluedirectlyintothatspace,whicheliminatestheneedtocopyfrominside
tooutside.Thecopyissimplyelided,oreditedout,bythecompiler.Soincodelikethefollowing,nocopies
arerequired:
std::vector<std::string>names=get_names();
Also,althoughthecompilerisnormallyrequiredtomakeacopywhenafunctionparameterispassedbyvalue
(somodificationstotheparameterinsidethefunctioncantaffectthecaller),itisallowedtoelidethecopy,and
simplyusethesourceobjectitself,whenthesourceisanrvalue.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

std::vector<std::string>
sorted(std::vector<std::string>names)
{
std::sort(names);
returnnames;

//namesisanlvalue;acopyisrequiredsowedon'tmodifynames
std::vector<std::string>sorted_names1=sorted(names);

//get_names()isanrvalueexpression;wecanomitthecopy!
std::vector<std::string>sorted_names2=sorted(get_names());
Thisisprettyremarkable.Inprinciple,inline12above,thecompilercaneliminatealltheworrisomecopies,
makingsorted_names2thesameobjectastheonecreatedinget_names().Inpractice,though,theprinciple
wonttakeusquitethatfar,asIllexplainlater.

Implications
Althoughcopyelisionisneverrequiredbythestandard,recentversionsofeverycompilerIvetesteddo
performtheseoptimizationstoday.Butevenifyoudontfeelcomfortablereturningheavyweightobjectsby
value,copyelisionshouldstillchangethewayyouwritecode.
Considerthiscousinofouroriginalsorted()function,whichtakesnamesbyconstreferenceandmakesan
explicitcopy:
std::vector<std::string>
sorted2(std::vector<std::string>const&names)//namespassedbyreference
{
std::vector<std::string>r(names);//andexplicitlycopied
std::sort(r);
returnr;
}
Althoughsortedandsorted2seematfirsttobeidentical,therecouldbeahugeperformancedifferenceifa
compilerdoescopyelision.Eveniftheactualargumenttosorted2isanrvalue,thesourceofthecopy,names,
isanlvalue,3sothecopycantbeoptimizedaway.Inasense,copyelisionisavictimoftheseparate
compilationmodel:insidethebodyofsorted2,theresnoinformationaboutwhethertheactualargumenttothe
functionisanrvalueoutside,atthecallsite,theresnoindicationthatacopyoftheargumentwilleventuallybe
made.
Thatrealizationleadsusdirectlytothisguideline:
Guideline:Dontcopyyourfunctionarguments.Instead,passthembyvalueandletthecompilerdothe
copying.
Atworst,ifyourcompilerdoesntelidecopies,performancewillbenoworse.Atbest,youllseeanenormous
performanceboost.
Oneplaceyoucanapplythisguidelineimmediatelyisinassignmentoperators.Thecanonical,easytowrite,
alwayscorrect,strongguarantee,copyandswapassignmentoperatorisoftenseenwrittenthisway:
T&T::operator=(Tconst&x)//xisareferencetothesource
{

Ttmp(x);//copyconstructionoftmpdoesthehardwork
swap(*this,tmp);//tradeourresourcesfortmp's
return*this;//our(old)resourcesgetdestroyedwithtmp
}
butinlightofcopyelision,thatformulationisglaringlyinefficient!Itsnowobviousthatthecorrectwaytowrite
acopyandswapassignmentis:
T&operator=(Tx)//xisacopyofthesource;hardworkalreadydone
{
swap(*this,x);//tradeourresourcesforx's
return*this;//our(old)resourcesgetdestroyedwithx
}

RealityBites
Ofcourse,lunchisneverreallyfree,soIhaveacoupleofcaveats.
First,whenyoupassparametersbyreferenceandcopyinthefunctionbody,thecopyconstructoriscalledfrom
onecentrallocation.However,whenyoupassparametersbyvalue,thecompilergeneratescallstothecopy
constructoratthesiteofeachcallwherelvalueargumentsarepassed.Ifthefunctionwillbecalledfrommany
placesandcodesizeorlocalityareseriousconsiderationsforyourapplication,itcouldhavearealeffect.
Ontheotherhand,itseasytobuildawrapperfunctionthatlocalizesthecopy:
std::vector<std::string>
sorted3(std::vector<std::string>const&names)
{
//copyisgeneratedonce,atthesiteofthiscall
returnsorted(names);
}
SincetheconversedoesntholdyoucantgetbackalostopportunityforcopyelisionbywrappingI
recommendyoustartbyfollowingtheguideline,andmakechangesonlyasyoufindthemtobenecessary.
Second,Iveyettofindacompilerthatwillelidethecopywhenafunctionparameterisreturned,asinour
implementationofsorted.Whenyouthinkabouthowtheseelisionsaredone,itmakessense:withoutsome
formofinterproceduraloptimization,thecallerofsortedcantknowthattheargument(andnotsomeother
object)willeventuallybereturned,sothecompilermustallocateseparatespaceonthestackfortheargument
andthereturnvalue.
Ifyouneedtoreturnafunctionparameter,youcanstillgetnearoptimalperformancebyswappingintoa
defaultconstructedreturnvalue(provideddefaultconstructionandswaparecheap,astheyshouldbe):
std::vector<std::string>
sorted(std::vector<std::string>names)
{
std::sort(names);
std::vector<std::string>ret;

swap(ret,names);
returnret;
}

MoreToCome
Hopefullyyounowhavetheammunitionyouneedtostaveoffanxietyaboutpassingandreturningnontrivial
objectsbyvalue.Butwerenotdoneyet:nowthatwevecoveredrvalues,copyelision,andtheRVO,wehave
allthebackgroundweneedtoattackmovesemantics,rvaluereferences,perfectforwarding,andmoreaswe
continuethisarticleseries.Seeyousoon!
Followthislinktothenextinstallment.

Acknowledgements
HowardHinnantisresponsibleforkeyinsightsthatmakethisarticleseriespossible.AndreiAlexandrescuwas
postingoncomp.lang.c++.moderatedabouthowtoleveragecopyelisionyearsbeforeItookitseriously.Mostof
all,though,thanksingeneraltoallreadersandreviewers!
1.Googlingforagooddefinitionofvaluesemanticsturnedupnothingforme.Unlesssomeoneelsecanpoint
toone(andmaybeeveniftheycan),wellberunninganarticleonthattopicinwhichIpromiseyoua
definitionsoon.
2.Foradetailedtreatmentofrvaluesandlvalues,pleaseseethisexcellentarticlebyDanSaks
3.Exceptforenumsandnontypetemplateparameters,everyvaluewithanameisanlvalue.
PostedSaturday,August15th,2009underValueSemantics.