http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57010
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-04-20 11:17:27 UTC --- (In reply to comment #6) > By the way, traditionally, for *library* patches we never used -p + I'm > traveling sorry (C++ in Bristol), I barely installed some stuff on this tiny > laptop, I didn't mean to use it to do actual programming. I hope it is clear that it wasn't a reproach :-( > More to the point, I'm under the impression that preliminarily checking > (__last > - __first > 1) is more user friendly as undefined behavior in case __first == > __last happens to be true. We do have __glibcxx_requires_non_empty_range in there, but that's only in some debug mode I guess. By the way, sort_heap is the only similar while condition I could see. > I think we should just do that, consistently with > the existing while loops in the same file, at least to resolve this issue for > 4.8.x too. Maybe reconsider later. Ok.
