http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57010



--- Comment #8 from Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-04-20 11:25:30 
UTC ---

(In reply to comment #6)

> More to the point, I'm under the impression that preliminarily checking 
> (__last

> - __first > 1) is more user friendly as undefined behavior in case __first ==

> __last happens to be true.



Forgot to mention: this version should have the same user-friendliness, use of

!= vs < is mostly orthogonal.



  if (first < --__last)



(but you can stick to your version, I was only proposing an alternative)

Reply via email to