On 24/09/19 11:24 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2019, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 24/09/19 09:57 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 23/09/19 19:39 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
If __index_type is a smaller type than size_t, then the result of
s
On Tue, 24 Sep 2019, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 24/09/19 09:57 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 23/09/19 19:39 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
If __index_type is a smaller type than size_t, then the result of
size_t(__index_type(-1)) is not equal to size_
On 24/09/19 09:57 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 23/09/19 19:39 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
If __index_type is a smaller type than size_t, then the result of
size_t(__index_type(-1)) is not equal to size_t(-1), but to an incorrect
value such as size_
On 23/09/19 19:39 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
If __index_type is a smaller type than size_t, then the result of
size_t(__index_type(-1)) is not equal to size_t(-1), but to an incorrect
value such as size_t(255) or size_t(65535). The old implementation o
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
If __index_type is a smaller type than size_t, then the result of
size_t(__index_type(-1)) is not equal to size_t(-1), but to an incorrect
value such as size_t(255) or size_t(65535). The old implementation of
variant::index() uses (size_t(__index_type(
If __index_type is a smaller type than size_t, then the result of
size_t(__index_type(-1)) is not equal to size_t(-1), but to an incorrect
value such as size_t(255) or size_t(65535). The old implementation of
variant::index() uses (size_t(__index_type(_M_index + 1)) - 1)
which is always correct, b
