From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25229 invoked by alias); 7 Sep 2005 20:14:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 25209 invoked by uid 48); 7 Sep 2005 20:14:45 -0000 Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:14:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050907201445.25208.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "pcarlini at suse dot de" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20050907170304.23767.afra@cs.stanford.edu> References: <20050907170304.23767.afra@cs.stanford.edu> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/23767] std::vector iterator implementation wrong X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-09/txt/msg00868.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-09-07 20:14 ------- (In reply to comment #5) > How about something like: Yes, in my mind earlier today I considered that solution. In principle should work. However, there are issues, I'm afraid: optimization issues with the extra dummy parameter (right?) and, well, maybe we can figure out something cleaner (in particular, I'm under the impression that, as a policy, we do our best to minimize the enable_if-isms) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23767