On 03/10/14 15:49 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 03/10/14 16:25 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2014, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
This is the patch I intend to commit to make std::list::size() O(1) as
required by C++11.
This is an ABI change, so std::list will get tagged with
abi_tag("cx
On Fri, 3 Oct 2014, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Marc, this is the relative diff to go back to what I had earlier, with
the size in the _List_impl in case you want to aply it locally (the
dg-error tests are off-by-one with this patch)
Thanks. For PR 61347, to avoid offsetof, I will actually need to
On 03/10/14 15:49 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 03/10/14 16:25 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
Do you mind if I move (in a future patch once yours is committed)
_M_size into _M_impl::_M_node as suggested in PR 61347?
Gah, that's where I had it until earlier this week, and I looked at it
and wonde
On 03/10/14 16:25 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2014, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
This is the patch I intend to commit to make std::list::size() O(1) as
required by C++11.
This is an ABI change, so std::list will get tagged with
abi_tag("cxx11") so that it mangles differently.
Assuming
On Fri, 3 Oct 2014, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
This is the patch I intend to commit to make std::list::size() O(1) as
required by C++11.
This is an ABI change, so std::list will get tagged with
abi_tag("cxx11") so that it mangles differently.
Assuming a future where we have both _GLIBCXX_ABI_TAG_
This is the patch I intend to commit to make std::list::size() O(1) as
required by C++11.
This is an ABI change, so std::list will get tagged with
abi_tag("cxx11") so that it mangles differently.
I took a different approach to the way O(1) size() was implemented
(and then reverted) for GCC 4.7.0
