Why is the move constructor called in this case?...

Are compilers clever enough to std::move variables going out of scope?...

Out params vs. NRVO in the presence of error codes...

When the move constructor is actually called if we have (N)RVO?...

How does C++ ABI deal with RVO and NRVO?...

Can I rely on named return value optimisation for complicated return types?...

Can libraries with implementation seperated from decalration benefit from RVO/NRVO?...

C++: should I explicitly use std::move() in a return statement to force a move?...

Shouldn't NRVO guarantee the local named variable and the call-site variable to take the same ad...

c++ - NRVO and move...

C++ RVO: when it happens?...

Why doesn't NRVO work without copy constructor...

Is RVO applied on this situation?...

Avoid const locals that are returned?...

Can someone explain the output of this c++ program?...

Does introducing a new variable defeat return value optimisation?...

Compiler Optimization with return (std::stringstream ss).str()...

Regarding copy constructor and NRVO...

Does (N)RVO also happen when the value is being copied into an existent object?...

Does RVO work with "new"?...

C++: RVO, NRVO and returning local objects...

Why is clang not optimizing this with NRVO?...

C++ Return Value Optimization...

Why should one rely on Named Return Value Optimization?...

Which function structure is better?...

Complete example of (N)RVO...

Is the object copied or not when RVO/NRVO kicks in?...

Using a const reference to a returned by value value...