News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A Story Of realloc (And Laziness) by yongjik on Sunday April 06, 2014 @05:05PM (#7542948)
It seems that even vector::shrink_to_fit is implemented that way.

That is, when you call shrink_to_fit, it first copies all elements it has, swaps itself with the new copy, and deletes the original vector. (Probably because there's no portable way of returning only part of a contiguous memory region. Yikes.)

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2695552/how-to-shrink-to-...

Re:A Story Of realloc (And Laziness) by dbaupp on Sunday April 06, 2014 @05:59PM (#7543239)
I think the reason is the existence of move/copy constructors, i.e. it's invalid to just move a C++ object in memory (as a realloc would do), in general.

(shrink_to_fit does need to (attempt to) get a smaller allocation, otherwise or wouldn't be shrinking the vector.)