--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-03-31 20:57
---
*** Bug 20706 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-02-21 02:54
---
Not a but, really, not even of QoI type. What's going on is that your fourth
reserve, reserve(8165), actually asks for a capacity which is *lower* than the
current one (i.e., 16355), that is, in standard terms, a "
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-02-20 22:57
---
Humm, actually the fix seems very simple and also cures an old itch of mine,
thanks for this! We should just call _S_create passing the current size *not*
capacity as the second argument. Stay tuned...
--
http:
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-02-20 22:18
---
Note that, according to the standard, after a call to reserve(n), the *only*
guarantee is that capacity >= n. I'm going to look a bit into this, but will
change the current behavior, which results from the interact
