https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118209

--- Comment #2 from GCC Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka <ppa...@gcc.gnu.org>:

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:92417c387365033cac4fff7ec8da2b42bd75dfba

commit r16-1741-g92417c387365033cac4fff7ec8da2b42bd75dfba
Author: Patrick Palka <ppa...@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri Jun 27 13:53:06 2025 -0400

    libstdc++: Directly implement ranges::sort [PR100795]

    As with the previous patch, this patch reimplements ranges::sort
    directly instead of incorrectly forwarding to std::sort.  In addition to
    the compatibility changes listed in the previous patch we also:

      - use ranges::iter_swap instead of std::iter_swap
      - use ranges::move_backward instead of std::move_backward
      - use __bit_width and __to_unsigned_like instead of __lg

            PR libstdc++/100795
            PR libstdc++/118209

    libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:

            * include/bits/max_size_type.h (__bit_width): New explicit
            specialization for __max_size_type.
            * include/bits/ranges_algo.h (__detail::__move_median_to_first):
            New, based on the stl_algo.h implementation.
            (__detail::__unguarded_liner_insert): Likewise.
            (__detail::__insertion_sort): Likewise.
            (__detail::__sort_threshold): Likewise.
            (__detail::__unguarded_insertion_sort): Likewise.
            (__detail::__final_insertion_sort): Likewise.
            (__detail::__unguarded_partition): Likewise.
            (__detail::__unguarded_partition_pivot): Likewise.
            (__detail::__heap_select): Likewise.
            (__detail::__partial_sort): Likewise.
            (__detail::__introsort_loop): Likewise.
            (__sort_fn::operator()): Reimplement in terms of the above.
            * testsuite/25_algorithms/sort/118209.cc: New test.
            * testsuite/25_algorithms/sort/constrained.cc (test03): New test.

    Reviewed-by: Tomasz KamiÅski <tkami...@redhat.com>
    Reviewed-by: Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com>

Reply via email to