[PATCH] D18061: Add iterator types to iterator_range, to appease newer gcc's

[Dimitry Andric via llvm-commits]

dim added a subscriber: EricWF.
dim added a comment.

In http://reviews.llvm.org/D18061#372401, @dblaikie wrote:

> Is this a bug in libstdc++ - should it be requiring/relying on the operand
>  to have an ::iterator typedef?


This compilation isn't using libstdc++, but libc++.  So if it's a bug in the C++ library, it's something in libc++...  However, I don't think so, really.  @EricWF, any opinions about this?

> (& even if it is a bug, perhaps we should still workaround it - but I'm not

>  entirely sure what the right workaround is, perhaps we should just have our

>  own begin/end that don't have this feature/bug)


I'm not sure why reverse() doesn't just call .begin() and .end() on the argument.  There might have been a specific reason to use std::begin() and std::end().


http://reviews.llvm.org/D18061