[libcxx] r260012 - Cleanup node-type handling in the unordered containers

[Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via cfe-commits]

I'm hoping only a year or two (or three...)?

> On 2016-Feb-10, at 14:29, Eric Fiselier <eric at efcs.ca> wrote:
> 
> > Can we hold off a little longer?
> 
> Yes we can. The entire point of the AFAIK was to encourage migration to libc++ so it makes some
> sense to keep them while they still serve this purpose.
> 
> When you say "a little longer" what sort of timeline do you have in mind?
> 
> It would be nice to get rid of these in the *long term*, but they aren't in danger ATM.
> 
> /Eric
> 
> 
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 2016-Feb-10, at 13:25, Bob Wilson <bob.wilson at apple.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Feb 10, 2016, at 12:59 PM, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 10 February 2016 at 12:52, Eric Fiselier <eric at efcs.ca> wrote:
> >>> @Tim Are these tests in the clang test suite?
> >>
> >> Yep, at http://llvm.org/git/test-suite.git.
> >>
> >>> Marshall and I were just talking about removing <ext/hash_map> all together. Could you explain who still uses it?
> >>
> >> In the test-suite, it looks like it's just these two micro-benchmarks.
> >> I doubt anyone would complain about converting them to use
> >> std::unordered_map (especially since the underlying implementation
> >> seems to be shared anyway).
> >>
> >> Outside that, we seem to have a handful of internal users and Bob may
> >> have ABI backwards-compatibility concerns (or not). I've added him
> >> explicitly.
> >
> > I will defer to Duncan on that question.
> 
> Removing ext/hash_map and ext/hash_set is a great idea.  I don't have
> any ABI concerns with removing them, since they are both header-only.
> 
> Unfortunately, we still have users on libstdc++ that use ext/hash_set
> and ext/hash_map, and deleting these would make migration to libc++
> harder.  Can we hold off a little longer?  Feel free to file a PR and
> assign it to me.
>