------- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-09-18 23:26 ------- (In reply to comment #1) > And what does the C++ standard say about this case?
As far as I can see, the standard is very vague about the relationship between the two max_size. About allocator::max_size, it says "the largest value that can meaningfully be passed to X::allocate" and, given that way allocate forwards to the underlying memory allocation facilities, size_type(-1) / sizeof(T) seems certainly conforming. As regards container::max_size, we have the same value for vector - the only one which always allocates a single chunk of memory at a time - and simply size_type(-1) for the other containers. Again, I don't see how those values could be non-conforming to the text in the standard, which only says "size() of the largest possible container". Maybe, as a matter of QoI something more accurate could be returned, basing on non-trivial interactions with the underlying OS, but I don't think we have any hard bug here. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29134
