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 3DD023858D28; Thu, 28 Dec 2023 08:46:13 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 3DD023858D28
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1703753173;
	bh=NziXN2mtQsuQMlz5mjZQhGpSPR7MDfF4clviQjjeCEc=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=mef5hSscNTQteorgOv6L6A4zGtEtPfrVgXvS29rU5mJf/BsmtLUWvkm1Nco0JcZVp
	 S/V8juUQig9F9q3CWDONR3VHlSf6ncZQXlTgxcKwn0/8hgUW7KUis/KDO7RrAOPDFL
	 XN7iIs84c9YE/eXvCKnEVxhw3872X4IRvy6fBrMw=
From: "xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/113159] More robust std::sort for silly comparator
 functions
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2023 08:46:08 +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: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: INVALID
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: resolution bug_status cc
Message-ID: <bug-113159-4-8REBN5tWq9@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-113159-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-113159-4@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
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D113159

Xi Ruoyao <xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Resolution|---                         |INVALID
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #1 from Xi Ruoyao <xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Glibc qsort had been slower than std::sort.

And in upcoming Glibc-2.39 there will be a major reimplementation of qsort,=
 now
it's unclear if it will still keep the behavior you want.  Anyway this
shouldn't be something we should rely on.

Thus I don't think this is valid.=