https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98723
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Yes, that looks like nice improvement, thanks.
I think it would be easier to read as:
if (!_M_equiv_set.empty())
{
auto __x = _M_traits.transform_primary(&__ch, &__ch+1);
auto __p = std::find(_M_equiv_set.begin(), _M_equiv_set.end(),
__x);
if (__p != _M_equiv_set.end())
return true;
}
Could you send a patch to the mailing lists for review?
