Re: [patch] libstdc++/66055 add missing constructors to unordered containers

["François Dumont" <frs.dumont@gmail.com>]

Ok, I just commit fixing some other lines length except those having a 
long hyperlink, I didn't want to break those.

François


On 16/05/2015 21:32, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 16/05/15 11:39 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
>> On 14/05/2015 15:47, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>> Reported by Nathan and fixed by his patch. I added the tests.
>>>
>>> Tested powerpc64le-linux, committed to trunk. This should be
>>> backported too.
>>
>> While backporting to debug and profile mode I noticed that those 
>> constructors were not the only missing ones. So here is a patch to 
>> complete them with debug and profile modes.
>
> Great, thanks.
>
>> @@ -233,6 +222,41 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_CONTAINER
>>     : _M_h(__l, __n, __hf, __eql, __a)
>>       { }
>>
>> +      unordered_map(size_type __n, const allocator_type& __a)
>> +      : unordered_map(__n, hasher(), key_equal(), __a)
>> +      { }
>> +
>> +      unordered_map(size_type __n, const hasher& __hf,
>> +            const allocator_type& __a)
>> +      : unordered_map(__n, __hf, key_equal(), __a)
>> +      { }
>> +
>> +      template<typename _InputIterator>
>> +    unordered_map(_InputIterator __first, _InputIterator __last,
>> +              size_type __n,
>> +              const allocator_type& __a)
>> +      : unordered_map(__first, __last, __n, hasher(), key_equal(), __a)
>
> The indentation is inconsistent here, the ctor-initializer-list is
> indented further than necessary
>
>> @@ -891,7 +941,7 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_CONTAINER
>>        *  in the initializer list @a __l.
>>        *
>>        *  Note that the assignment completely changes the 
>> %unordered_multiset
>> -       *  and that the resulting %unordered_set's size is the same 
>> as the number
>> +       *  and that the resulting %unordered_multiset's size is the 
>> same as the number
>>        *  of elements assigned.  Old data may be lost.
>
> Please reformat this to stay below 80 columns.
>
> OK with those two tiny adjustments, thanks!
>
>