From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@math.tamu.edu>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 00:24:55 +0000 (+0000)
Subject: Work around an issue in a copy constructor we needed for C++11 compatibility and... 
X-Git-Tag: v8.1.0~670
X-Git-Url: https://gitweb.dealii.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?a=commitdiff_plain;h=b3025fcc0af2b7a2aee7f5537268910909f91b5c;p=dealii.git

Work around an issue in a copy constructor we needed for C++11 compatibility and Intel's ICC.

git-svn-id: https://svn.dealii.org/trunk@31054 0785d39b-7218-0410-832d-ea1e28bc413d
---

diff --git a/deal.II/include/deal.II/base/work_stream.h b/deal.II/include/deal.II/base/work_stream.h
index 99e3b7d4c2..5c7b05d500 100644
--- a/deal.II/include/deal.II/base/work_stream.h
+++ b/deal.II/include/deal.II/base/work_stream.h
@@ -189,12 +189,16 @@ namespace WorkStream
 
 //TODO:	when we push back an object to the list of scratch objects, in
 //	Worker::operator(), we first create an object and then copy
-//	it to the end of this list. We should avoid the copy operations
-//	since it is expensive
+//	it to the end of this list. this involves having two objects
+//      of the current type having pointers to it, each with their own
+//      currently_in_use flag. there is probably little harm in this because
+//      the original one goes out of scope right away again, but it's
+//      certainly awkward. one way to avoid this would be to use unique_ptr
+//      but we'd need to figure out a way to use it in non-C++11 mode
           ScratchDataObject (const ScratchDataObject &o)
             :
-  	    scratch_data (new ScratchData(*o.scratch_data)),
-            currently_in_use (false)
+  	    scratch_data (o.scratch_data),
+            currently_in_use (o.currently_in_use)
           {}
         };