c++ - Is default constructor elision / assignment elision possible in principle?

Question

. or even allowed by the C++11 standard?

And if so, is there any compiler that actually does it?

Here is an example of what I mean:

template<class T> //T is a builtin type
class data 
{
public:
    constexpr
    data() noexcept :
        x_{0,0,0,0}
    {}

    constexpr
    data(const T& a, const T& b, const T& c, const T& d) noexcept :
        x_{a,b,c,d}
    {}

    data(const data&) noexcept = default;

    data& operator = (const data&) noexcept = default;

    constexpr const T&
    operator[] (std::size_t i) const noexcept {
        return x_[i];
    }

    T&
    operator[] (std::size_t i) noexcept {
        return x_[i];
    }

private:
    T x_[4];
};


template<class Ostream, class T>
Ostream& operator << (Ostream& os, const data<T>& d)
{
    return (os << d[0] <<' '<< d[1] <<' '<< d[2] <<' '<< d[3]);
}


template<class T>
inline constexpr
data<T>
get_data(const T& x, const T& y)
{
    return data<T>{x + y, x * y, x*x, y*y};
}


int main()
{
    double x, y;
    std::cin >> x >> y;

    auto d = data<double>{x, y, 2*x, 2*y};

    std::cout << d << std::endl;

    //THE QUESTION IS ABOUT THIS LINE
    d = get_data(x,y);  

    d[0] += d[2];
    d[1] += d[3];
    d[2] *= d[3];

    std::cout << d << std::endl;

    return 0;
}

Regarding the marked line:
Could the values x+y, x*y, x*x, y*y be written directly to the memory of d? Or could the return type of get_data be directly constructed in the memory of d?
I can't think of a reason to not allow such an optimization. At least not for a class that has only constexpr constructors and default copy and assignment operators.

g++ 4.7.2 elides all copy constructors in this example; it seems however that assignment is always performed (even for default assignment only - as far as I can tell from the assembly that g++ emits).

The motivation for my question is the following situation in which such an optimization would greatly simplify and improve library design. Suppose you write performance-critical library routines using a literal class. Objects of that class will hold enough data (say 20 doubles) that copies have to be kept to a minimum.

class Literal{ constexpr Literal(...): {...} {} ...};

//nice: allows RVO and is guaranteed to not have any side effects
constexpr Literal get_random_literal(RandomEngine&) {return Literal{....}; }

//not favorable in my opinion: possible non-obvious side-effects, code duplication
//would be superfluous if said optimization were performed
void set_literal_random(RandomEngine&, Literal&) {...}

It would make for a much cleaner (functional programming style) design if I could do without the second function. But sometimes I just need to modify a long-lived Literal object and have to make sure that I don't create a new one and copy-assign it to the one I want to modify. The modification itself is cheap, the copies aren't - that's what my experiments indicate.

EDIT:
Let's suppose the optimization shall only be allowed for a class with noexcept constexpr constructors and noexcept default operator=.

Answer 1

Elision of default copy/move assignment operators is allowed based on the general as-if rule only. That is the compiler can do it if it can ascertain that it will have no observable effect on behaviour.

In practice the as-if rule is used in general fashion to allow optimizations at intermediate representation and assembly levels. If the compiler can inline the default constructor and assignment, it can optimize them. It won't ever use the code of the copy constructor for it, but for their default implementations it should end up with the same code.

Edit: I answered before there was the code sample. Copy/move constructors are elided based on explicit permission to the compiler to do so, therefore they are elided even if they have observable effect (printing "COPY"). Assignments can only be elided based on as-if rule, but they have observable effect (printing "ASSIGN"), so the compiler is not allowed to touch them.