--- Comment #10 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-11-29 08:34
---
Stefan is right. The issue, in full generality, isn't trivial at all, there is
now a new discussion on the library reflector. I'm under the impression that
for C++0x we are not going to standardize the minimum
--- Comment #9 from sstrasser at systemhaus-gruppe dot de 2009-11-29 02:29
---
(In reply to comment #7)
> An implementation is probably expected to shrink bucket_count when size
> shrinks, so the complexity should still be O(size). That would be good
> for memory use anyway, so why's t
--- Comment #8 from sjackman at gmail dot com 2009-11-29 00:44 ---
I wouldn't depend on the number of buckets shrinking. Shrinking (and growing) a
hash table is an expensive operation that requires rehashing all the elements
in the hash table. Even if the implementation does provide the
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-28 23:16 ---
An implementation is probably expected to shrink bucket_count when size
shrinks, so the complexity should still be O(size). That would be good
for memory use anyway, so why's that not done?
--
http://gcc.gnu.or
--- Comment #6 from jzwinck at gmail dot com 2009-11-28 22:59 ---
The same bug has recently been raised in Boost's implementation of unordered
containers: https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/3693
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41975
