[Bug libstdc++/31970] set::iterator vs type-safety

2010-02-12 Thread paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
--- Comment #9 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-02-13 01:44 --- Actually, this is a feature, not a bug: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2009/n2913.pdf -- paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed

[Bug libstdc++/31970] set::iterator vs type-safety

2007-06-10 Thread chris at bubblescope dot net
--- Comment #8 from chris at bubblescope dot net 2007-06-10 08:57 --- Hmm.. I thought I did have a good example, I had a function that looked like: templatetypename It int count_unique(It begin, It end) { settypename It::value_type counter(begin, end); return counter.size(); }

[Bug libstdc++/31970] set::iterator vs type-safety

2007-06-09 Thread chris at bubblescope dot net
--- Comment #6 from chris at bubblescope dot net 2007-06-10 00:10 --- While fixing this could stop that illegal code, wouldn't it also lead to increased code size where you have multiple sets of (for example) ints templated on different comparitors? -- chris at bubblescope dot net

[Bug libstdc++/31970] set::iterator vs type-safety

2007-06-09 Thread pcarlini at suse dot de
--- Comment #7 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-06-10 00:20 --- That question occured to me too... Now I'm thinking that probably isn't a real issue assuming good optimizers, as usual. Do you have a practical example? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31970

[Bug libstdc++/31970] set::iterator vs type-safety

2007-05-21 Thread pcarlini at suse dot de
-- pcarlini at suse dot de changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|major |enhancement http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31970