Re: vector _M_start and 0 offset

[Marc Glisse]

Hello,

here is a clang-friendly version of the patch (same changelog), tested a 
while ago. Is it ok or do you prefer something like the

+ if(this->_M_impl._M_start._M_offset != 0) __builtin_unreachable();

version suggested by François?

--
Marc GlisseIndex: include/bits/stl_bvector.h
===================================================================
--- include/bits/stl_bvector.h	(revision 264371)
+++ include/bits/stl_bvector.h	(working copy)
@@ -802,25 +802,25 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_CONTAINER
 #endif
 
 #if __cplusplus >= 201103L
       void
       assign(initializer_list<bool> __l)
       { _M_assign_aux(__l.begin(), __l.end(), random_access_iterator_tag()); }
 #endif
 
       iterator
       begin() _GLIBCXX_NOEXCEPT
-      { return this->_M_impl._M_start; }
+      { return iterator(this->_M_impl._M_start._M_p, 0); }
 
       const_iterator
       begin() const _GLIBCXX_NOEXCEPT
-      { return this->_M_impl._M_start; }
+      { return const_iterator(this->_M_impl._M_start._M_p, 0); }
 
       iterator
       end() _GLIBCXX_NOEXCEPT
       { return this->_M_impl._M_finish; }
 
       const_iterator
       end() const _GLIBCXX_NOEXCEPT
       { return this->_M_impl._M_finish; }
 
       reverse_iterator
@@ -835,21 +835,21 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_CONTAINER
       rend() _GLIBCXX_NOEXCEPT
       { return reverse_iterator(begin()); }
 
       const_reverse_iterator
       rend() const _GLIBCXX_NOEXCEPT
       { return const_reverse_iterator(begin()); }
 
 #if __cplusplus >= 201103L
       const_iterator
       cbegin() const noexcept
-      { return this->_M_impl._M_start; }
+      { return const_iterator(this->_M_impl._M_start._M_p, 0); }
 
       const_iterator
       cend() const noexcept
       { return this->_M_impl._M_finish; }
 
       const_reverse_iterator
       crbegin() const noexcept
       { return const_reverse_iterator(end()); }
 
       const_reverse_iterator