https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105308
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1) > I'm unclear what the request is. The list isn't super clear to me either, any sensible specialization of a standard algorithm for a standard container. Even simply ranges::for_each(std::set,*) looks like it could be a bit faster with a specialization instead of using iterators. > Are you proposing this for the parallel > std::for_each with an execution policy? Yes, that's the first motivation. > That code comes from the PSTL project which is part of LLVM, > and maintained by Intel, so enhancements to it should ideally be done > upstream. But the code would need to use private interfaces of libstdc++'s _Rb_tree. Does PSTL contain a lot of special code, with one variant for libstdc++ / libc++ / other, that uses internals of the datastructures?
