[Bug libstdc++/46572] forward_list nodes are not packed

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46572 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug libstdc++/46572] forward_list nodes are not packed

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46572 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-11-20 06:02:33 UTC --- hmm, no, I have no opinion about this except to say a non-normative note doesn't imply non-portable requirements. I think the standard doesn't mean "should have absolutely no overhe

[Bug libstdc++/46572] forward_list nodes are not packed

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46572 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jwakely.gcc at gmail dot

[Bug libstdc++/46572] forward_list nodes are not packed

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46572 --- Comment #3 from Kyle Kloepper 2010-11-19 23:01:07 UTC --- I would read the standard as in inclusive or. But even if you read it as one or the other, I do not think that in all cases speed would be prefered over space. Is there any way to im

[Bug libstdc++/46572] forward_list nodes are not packed

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46572 --- Comment #2 from Kyle Kloepper 2010-11-19 22:47:47 UTC --- Created attachment 22464 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22464 Program to print out the size used by forward_list node allocation

[Bug libstdc++/46572] forward_list nodes are not packed

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46572 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2010-11-19 22:25:32 UTC --- >zero space or time overhead We have a zero time overhead here. packed would increase the time overhead here really.