[Bug libstdc++/78273] The transparent version of {map,set}::count should call _M_count_tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78273 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely --- Fixed for 5.5 and 6.4
[Bug libstdc++/78273] The transparent version of {map,set}::count should call _M_count_tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78273 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Tue Feb 14 21:17:11 2017 New Revision: 245454 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245454=gcc=rev Log: PR78273 fix count to work with partitioning function Backport from mainline 2017-01-11 Jonathan WakelyPR libstdc++/78273 * include/bits/stl_map.h (map::count<_Kt>(const _Kt&)): Don't assume the heterogeneous comparison can only find one match. * include/bits/stl_set.h (set::count<_Kt>(const _Kt&)): Likewise. * testsuite/23_containers/map/operations/2.cc: Test count works with comparison function that just partitions rather than sorting. * testsuite/23_containers/set/operations/2.cc: Likewise. Modified: branches/gcc-5-branch/libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog branches/gcc-5-branch/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_map.h branches/gcc-5-branch/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_set.h branches/gcc-5-branch/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/map/operations/2.cc branches/gcc-5-branch/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/set/operations/2.cc
[Bug libstdc++/78273] The transparent version of {map,set}::count should call _M_count_tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78273 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Tue Feb 14 20:07:26 2017 New Revision: 245446 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245446=gcc=rev Log: PR78273 fix count to work with partitioning function Backport from mainline 2017-01-11 Jonathan WakelyPR libstdc++/78273 * include/bits/stl_map.h (map::count<_Kt>(const _Kt&)): Don't assume the heterogeneous comparison can only find one match. * include/bits/stl_set.h (set::count<_Kt>(const _Kt&)): Likewise. * testsuite/23_containers/map/operations/2.cc: Test count works with comparison function that just partitions rather than sorting. * testsuite/23_containers/set/operations/2.cc: Likewise. Modified: branches/gcc-6-branch/libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog branches/gcc-6-branch/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_map.h branches/gcc-6-branch/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_set.h branches/gcc-6-branch/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/map/operations/2.cc branches/gcc-6-branch/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/set/operations/2.cc
[Bug libstdc++/78273] The transparent version of {map,set}::count should call _M_count_tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78273 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |5.5 Known to fail||5.4.0, 6.3.0 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- Fixed on trunk so far.
[Bug libstdc++/78273] The transparent version of {map,set}::count should call _M_count_tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78273 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Wed Jan 11 14:44:04 2017 New Revision: 244317 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244317=gcc=rev Log: PR78273 fix count to work with partitioning function PR libstdc++/78273 * include/bits/stl_map.h (map::count<_Kt>(const _Kt&)): Don't assume the heterogeneous comparison can only find one match. * include/bits/stl_set.h (set::count<_Kt>(const _Kt&)): Likewise. * testsuite/23_containers/map/operations/2.cc: Test count works with comparison function that just partitions rather than sorting. * testsuite/23_containers/set/operations/2.cc: Likewise. Modified: trunk/libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog trunk/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_map.h trunk/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_set.h trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/map/operations/2.cc trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/set/operations/2.cc
[Bug libstdc++/78273] The transparent version of {map,set}::count should call _M_count_tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78273 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2016-11-09 Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- Oh, good point.