From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12023 invoked by alias); 18 May 2003 19:36:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 11973 invoked by uid 71); 18 May 2003 19:36:00 -0000 Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 19:36:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030518193600.11972.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Paolo Carlini Subject: Re: libstdc++/10783: std::vector::reverse_iterator could be smaller Reply-To: Paolo Carlini X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg02042.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR libstdc++/10783; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Paolo Carlini To: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, Sylvain.Pion@mpi-sb.mpg.de, ncm@cantrip.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: Subject: Re: libstdc++/10783: std::vector::reverse_iterator could be smaller Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 21:35:50 +0200 Well, on second thought, and giving justice to the clear explanation in V&J, in their ยง16.2.2 it is clearly stated that the EBCO has no equivalent for data members: this is reasonable considering that it would create problems with the representation of pointers to members. Therefore reverse_iterator is expected to have the same size of its iterator empty base (thanks to EBCO) + the size of its member current, that is two times the size of a plain iterator. Do you agree? Paolo. http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=10783