------- Comment #7 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-08-25 10:36 ------- (In reply to comment #6) > Sure, up to you, but I'd say you'd still be pretty safe adding two smaller > starting hash sizes.
Then, let's go with the minimal fix. Really, we decided time ago to only minimally maintain those ext containers... > This doesn't actually affect most OOos (at least for 95% of OOo's which exist) > which are normally built against stlport for some other ABI compatibility and > visibility reasons, so it's only an academic suggestion from my POV with > respect to gcc stl, unless we start building OOo against "system" stl at some > future point. ... in that case, tr1::unordered_ will be a *must* ;) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28844
