On 20/05/2014 21:36, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
OK. My sketch above avoided calling _M_moved_from() more than once per
object, but the compiler should be able to optimise your version to
avoid multiple calls anyway.
Here is the new patch limited to what I really want to commit this time.
Great.
On 19/05/14 22:27 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
On 15/05/2014 22:52, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Does this get initialized in the constructors?
Would it make sense to give it an initializer?
__bucket_type_M_single_bucket = nullptr;
This bucket is replacing those normally allocated a
On 15/05/2014 22:52, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 15/05/14 22:20 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Here is a proposal to fix PR 61143. As explained in the PR I
finally prefer to leave the container in a valid state that is to say
with a non zero number of bucket, that is to say 1, after a move
On 15/05/14 22:20 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Here is a proposal to fix PR 61143. As explained in the PR I
finally prefer to leave the container in a valid state that is to say
with a non zero number of bucket, that is to say 1, after a move. This
bucket is stored directly in the cont
Hi,
On 05/15/2014 10:20 PM, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Here is a proposal to fix PR 61143. As explained in the PR I
finally prefer to leave the container in a valid state that is to say
with a non zero number of bucket, that is to say 1, after a move. This
bucket is stored directly in the
Hi
Here is a proposal to fix PR 61143. As explained in the PR I
finally prefer to leave the container in a valid state that is to say
with a non zero number of bucket, that is to say 1, after a move. This
bucket is stored directly in the container so not allocated to leave the
move operat
