http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51845
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-01-18 20:52:27 UTC --- Other alternatives to fix this would be to add size_t __prev_bkt = _M_bucket_index(__prev_n); before the for (;;) loop and change the if (__n && __n_bkt != __bkt) test to if (__n && __prev_bkt != __n_bkt) or remove the __is_bucket_begin = true; line and do instead __is_bucket_begin = __n_bkt != __bkt; before the if (__n == __last_n) test and then test just __n && __is_bucket_begin after the for (;;) loop. But I think the patch I'm bootstrapping/regtesting right now is cheaper than that.
