Marshall, thanks for the link to #2464. That does look scary.
Nevertheless, I think this -- and the other over-eager allocations
in {unordered_,}{multi,}{map,set} -- are worth optimizing as long
as we can do it in a standards-compliant way. It's a pretty serious
regression in performance compared to expectations from C++03's
insert().
Let me know if you can think of some testing I can add to be sure
I'm not breaking anything (maybe test/std/.../ doesn't have enough
coverage?).
> On 2016-Jan-25, at 07:54, Marshall Clow <mclow.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> mclow.lists added a comment.
>
> I don't have any comments on this code at this time, but I want to caution
> people that this part of the standard library is **extremely** carefully
> specified, and meeting all the requirements is a fiddly bit of work.
>
> For an example of this, look at LWG issue #2464, which has been added to the
> draft C++17 standard.
>
>
> http://reviews.llvm.org/D16360
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
