Re: safe unordered local iterators

2011-07-21 Thread François Dumont
Attached patch applied: 2011-07-21 François Dumont * include/debug/safe_unordered_sequence.h, safe_unordered_sequence.tcc: Rename respectively in... * include/debug/safe_unordered_container.h, safe_unordered_container.tcc: ...those. _Safe_unordered_sequence

Re: safe unordered local iterators

2011-07-20 Thread Paolo Carlini
On 07/20/2011 11:42 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote: On 07/20/2011 10:51 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 20 July 2011 09:38, Jonathan Wakely wrote: See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2011-07/msg00368.html Should code inside namespace __gnu_debug be using std::size_t instead of assuming ::size_t has been decl

Re: safe unordered local iterators

2011-07-20 Thread Paolo Carlini
On 07/20/2011 10:51 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 20 July 2011 09:38, Jonathan Wakely wrote: See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2011-07/msg00368.html Should code inside namespace __gnu_debug be using std::size_t instead of assuming ::size_t has been declared? Or maybe that use (which is the only u

Re: safe unordered local iterators

2011-07-20 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 20 July 2011 09:51, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 20 July 2011 09:38, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2011-07/msg00368.html >> >> Should code inside namespace __gnu_debug be using std::size_t instead >> of assuming ::size_t has been declared? >> > > Or maybe that use (which

Re: safe unordered local iterators

2011-07-20 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 20 July 2011 09:38, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2011-07/msg00368.html > > Should code inside namespace __gnu_debug be using std::size_t instead > of assuming ::size_t has been declared? > Or maybe that use (which is the only unqualified size_t I see in include/debug/*

Re: safe unordered local iterators

2011-07-20 Thread Jonathan Wakely
See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2011-07/msg00368.html Should code inside namespace __gnu_debug be using std::size_t instead of assuming ::size_t has been declared?