> > 2) "advanced" c++ code:
> > 
> > void foo(const std::string& xxx) { ... };
> > int main() { foo("bar"); }
> > 
> > copy-created 2nd string is avoided, but string object to hold "bar" is still must be 
> > made, 1 malloc(), 1 memcpy().
> 
> Are you sure about this? I always thought that foo only receives a pointer to xxx which it puts on the stack, so
> no additional malloc/free is involved.

Yes, "bar" is not an std::string, cannot be used to call foo(), and the c++ compiler has to automagically rewrite 
the function call

from: int main() { foo("bar"); }
to:   int main() { foo(std::string("bar"); }

the temporary std::string object may be on the stack, but storage for text "bar" is on the heap (unless std::string 
is optimized to store short strings internally).

one can put a printf() inside foo() to print the address of xxx (should be on the stack) and xxx.c_str() (should be 
on the heap). one could also try to print the address of "bar" (should be in the read-only-constant-strings memory 
area). (I am not sure if compiler-linker combines all instances of "bar" into one, this is also easy to check).

K.O.