--- Comment #2 from chris at bubblescope dot net 2007-07-26 19:41 ---
Ah, woops, many apologises. Too long since I've looked at list::size, I forgot
which way around libstdc++ differed from the rest of the world :)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32907
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-26 19:35 ---
Well, in our current, C++03, implementation, definitely list::size is O(N). The
issue is thorny, as you know well. For C++0x, Howard has a proposal related to
the additional splice overload, I'm not sure which is the progre
