> If this isn't/wasn't going to help out the PMF stuff in std::experimental,
> then I don't think that this is worth doing.
I agree, I think the best thing to do would be to simply rename the functions
to avoid name collisions and then implement them separately for the PMR stuff.
That way we don't have to worry about changing the performance of the hash
containers.
================
Comment at: include/__hash_table:86
@@ -79,2 +85,3 @@
{
- return size_t(1) << (std::numeric_limits<size_t>::digits - __clz(__n-1));
+ return __n < 2 ? __n + (__n == 0)
+ : size_t(1) << (std::numeric_limits<size_t>::digits - __clz(__n-1));
----------------
mclow.lists wrote:
> Looks to me that this produces:
> 0 --> 1
> 1 --> 1
> 2 --> 4
> 4 --> 8
>
> Is that the intended behavior? (especially the second one)
Oops, I don't think so.
```
return n < 2 ? __n + 1
```
Should fix that.
But IDK if the change is needed. However I am still concerned that the current
version exhibits undefined behaviour for `__n = 1`.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D4948
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
