Nate Nate - 1 year ago 47
C++ Question

In C++, is it still bad practice to return a vector from a function?

Short version: It's common to return large objects—such as vectors/arrays—in many programming languages. Is this style now acceptable in C++0x if the class has a move constructor, or do C++ programmers consider it weird/ugly/abomination?

Long version: In C++0x is this still considered bad form?

std::vector<std::string> BuildLargeVector();
std::vector<std::string> v = BuildLargeVector();

The traditional version would look like this:

void BuildLargeVector(std::vector<std::string>& result);
std::vector<std::string> v;

In the newer version, the value returned from
is an rvalue, so v would be constructed using the move constructor of
, assuming (N)RVO doesn't take place.

Even prior to C++0x the first form would often be "efficient" because of (N)RVO. However, (N)RVO is at the discretion of the compiler. Now that we have rvalue references it is guaranteed that no deep copy will take place.

Edit: Question is really not about optimization. Both forms shown have near-identical performance in real-world programs. Whereas, in the past, the first form could have had order-of-magnitude worse performance. As a result the first form was a major code smell in C++ programming for a long time. Not anymore, I hope?

Answer Source

Dave Abrahams has a pretty comprehensive analysis of the speed of passing/returning values.

Short answer, if you need to return a value then return a value. Don't use output references because the compiler does it anyway. Of course there are caveats, so you should read that article.

Recommended from our users: Dynamic Network Monitoring from WhatsUp Gold from IPSwitch. Free Download