------- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-08-18 08:31 -------
Ok, I see... Then I will do the change, a little embarassing ;) By the way, if
it's not obvious, the reason we don't simply call _M_set_length is the other
base class, where clear cannot be trivial (due to refcounting) and the
meaningful thing to do is considering clear a special case of erase and share
code. At some point we should add a new _M_clear to both base classes and
either forward to _M_erase or just call _M_set_length.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|ian at airs dot com |pcarlini at suse dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28765
