On 15 January 2017 at 19:07, Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilai...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 15 January 2017 at 19:01, Ville Voutilainen > <ville.voutilai...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 15 January 2017 at 18:42, Tim Song <t.canens....@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On rereading the patch today, the size calculation for merge() appears >>> to be backwards. [__first2, __last2) consists of the nodes not >>> transferred into *this, so the new size of __x should be __dist while >>> this->size() should be incremented by (__orig_size - __dist). >> >> Ah, yes, I'm an idiot. Fixing... > > 2017-01-15 Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilai...@gmail.com> > > PR libstdc++/78389 > Fix backwards size adjustments. > * include/bits/list.tcc (merge(list&&)): > Fix backwards size adjustments. > (merge(list&&, _StrictWeakOrdering)): Likewise. > * testsuite/23_containers/list/operations/78389.cc: Add > better test for the sizes.
Hmm, and yeah, your test uses a different throw-after number, so I should change the tests to do the same. :)
