--- Comment #7 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-04-21 17:51 ---
Fixed for 4.1.1.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #6 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-21 17:50 ---
Subject: Bug 26424
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Apr 21 17:49:48 2006
New Revision: 113143
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=113143
Log:
2006-04-21 Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR libstd
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26424
--- Comment #5 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-19 22:58 ---
Subject: Bug 26424
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Apr 19 22:58:23 2006
New Revision: 113100
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=113100
Log:
2006-04-19 Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR libstd
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-04-19 10:49 ---
Working on it.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at g
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-02-22 18:01 ---
... something considered "obvious" in the literature is that the size policy
goes together with the range-hashing function: e.g., an exponential size-policy
would not work well together with our default modulo range-hashing
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-02-22 17:23 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Just curious: is the assumption of prime-size buckets hardwired in the TR?
> Otherwise, the obvious alternative would be to use power-of-two sizes, which
> are much faster in access.
Yes. Really,
--- Comment #1 from falk at debian dot org 2006-02-22 17:11 ---
Just curious: is the assumption of prime-size buckets hardwired in the TR?
Otherwise, the obvious alternative would be to use power-of-two sizes, which
are much faster in access.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.
