From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-333123-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 22014 invoked by alias); 6 Oct 2010 11:10:35 -0000
Received: (qmail 21999 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Oct 2010 11:10:34 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 06 Oct 2010 11:10:30 +0000
From: "joaquin at tid dot es" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/41975] [C++0x] [DR579] unordered_set::erase performs worse when nearly empty
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: joaquin at tid dot es
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.5.2
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
In-Reply-To: <bug-41975-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-41975-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 11:10:00 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-10/txt/msg00512.txt.bz2
Message-ID: <20101006111000.7q8Wy3_ZuHEwuufbPyY3GN6Bpk9-FT4IYvqC8KzxtfU@z>

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D41975

--- Comment #31 from Joaqu=C3=ADn M L=C3=B3pez Mu=C3=B1oz <joaquin at tid d=
ot es> 2010-10-06 11:10:12 UTC ---
Paolo,

I've read the minutes and seems no strong consensus
was reached. I think it'd be useful if the issue can
be reopened, at least for informative purposes, so
that the committe specify whether it's in the
spirit of the standard to allow low memory
(singly-linked, one word per node) implementations,
and if so what the likely implementations are (I
understand this is Pablo's third approach). If this
is the case the FCD has to be changed so as to allow
erase() to throw. Otherwise implementors will know
we have to resort to doubly-linked solutions.