[cfe-dev] [libc++] ext/hash function

Chris Lattner clattner at apple.com
Sun Jul 31 11:12:44 PDT 2011

On Jul 31, 2011, at 10:44 AM, Howard Hinnant wrote:

> What I would like to discuss is:  how similar should they be made to the the __gnu_cxx hash containers?  The __gnu_cxx hash containers were purposefully not standardized without change because the committee saw defects in their behavior.  Should our "migration adaptors" go to extra effort to replicate such defects in the __gnu_cxx hash containers?

My opinion is that they should emulate the SGI/GCC semantics as closely as possible.  These containers are not standard containers and thus their only purpose in life is to provide compatibility with non-standard code.  Trying to fix their design problems is highly counterproductive (IMO): code should move off of them, not suffer issues moving to libc++ because we tried to "improve" these already-known-broken containers.

FWIW, my opinion is also that we should provide a slist drop in compatible container (that is just as broken as the GNU one) without trying to fix its issues.


More information about the cfe-dev mailing list