https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70898
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70898
gccbugs at jbapple dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resoluti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70898
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Ah, then it's a dup of PR 67085 (which I had incorrectly marked as a dup of
51965).
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 67085 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70898
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> This is being tracked as PR 51965
PR 51965 seems to be about extra copies of the values, while this one is more
about extra copies of compare objects (then there
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70898
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70898
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
I think you are supposed to use std::reference_wrapper as comparator if
you don't want to copy it around. We did talk about reducing the number of
copies (mostly in the context of sorting), but nobody has found
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70898
--- Comment #1 from gccbugs at jbapple dot com ---
*** Bug 70899 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
