From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 7B8F7397081A; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 08:46:25 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 7B8F7397081A
From: "hewillk at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/100223] Missing early return in std::partial_sort
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 08:46:25 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: hewillk at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-100223-4-6CMcBHySn6@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-100223-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-100223-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 08:46:25 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D100223

--- Comment #2 from =E5=BA=B7=E6=A1=93=E7=91=8B <hewillk at gmail dot com> =
---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> Arguably, the caller can do this check if they think it can occur in their
> code. That way all calls to the algorithm don't pay for the check.
>=20
> But it's probably cheap enough to check anyway.

Exactly, since the <algorithm> is full of such checks, I think there is not=
hing
wrong with adding one for partial_sort.=