From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-265004-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 4026 invoked by alias); 11 Jun 2010 16:06:16 -0000
Received: (qmail 3991 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Jun 2010 16:06:12 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail-ww0-f47.google.com (HELO mail-ww0-f47.google.com) (74.125.82.47)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:06:09 +0000
Received: by wwb17 with SMTP id 17so971138wwb.20        for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:06:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.227.136.16 with SMTP id p16mr2081579wbt.151.1276272365208; 	Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:06:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.71.12 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:06:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4C125D99.4090109@oracle.com>
References: <4C125D99.4090109@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:24:00 -0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTikcIm66mJGzxxXyz-EB4EjDUERHqJ23w4_8fmcg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [v3] Add hash<shared_ptr> and hash<unique_ptr>
From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
To: Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com>
Cc: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, "libstdc++" <libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-06/txt/msg01227.txt.bz2

On 11 June 2010 17:00, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi all, hi Jon,
>
> I'm about to commit this patch adding two missing std::hash
> specializations...
>
> Jon, skimming through unique_ptr.h I don't really understand why we are
> using std::tuple instead of the *much* simpler std::pair. Can you? I
> think that otherwise we should consider changing that, even if that
> means breaking the "ABI" for people already experimenting with the C++0x
> unique_ptr, because in the future it will be more and more difficult...
> If we can avoid using tuple in unique_ptr, I think <memory> can be made
> *much* smaller (it used to be very small), because I'm pretty sure we
> don't need the entire <functional>, only some bits, like
> functional_hash, and very little else.

Does our tuple benefit from the EBO if the deleter is empty?