From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 5467B3858C56; Thu, 28 Dec 2023 18:42:35 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 5467B3858C56 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1703788955; bh=vZwqyrNSqV+6gnQufQfw9x4morqOF5+L2hGW2ItY9JQ=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=ChDjtCIqAjXGOcwjWfSs4i+1Ym5vSKArRo2Pn2cQcQRUmyDjgKtRCixqxyLyY4XEs YFX9Ci9C7mW/By4FQu5rq+9SNwO092d7vLirV4ONaz8g2bQ8xGAy4uvU9ozBfugLTc GD/+H04WIsexm2/uOmJCT61w8XXNe4kIfxkafU9U= From: "amonakov at gcc dot 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 18:42:34 +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: amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW 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: cc Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D113159 Alexander Monakov changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 from Alexander Monakov --- Can you outline what would merge criteria for such an enhancement look like? If it comes at a cost of increased code complexity and runtime overhead, wh= at sacrifice is acceptable in the name of increased robustness?=