This is the mail archive of the libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the libstdc++ project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: std::string::reserve vs std::vector::reserve

From: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>
To: Jonathan Wakely <cow at compsoc dot man dot ac dot uk>
Cc: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at suse dot de>,Peter Soetens <peter dot soetens at mech dot kuleuven dot be>, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:13:29 -0700
Subject: Re: std::string::reserve vs std::vector::reserve
References: <200506161300.37570.peter.soetens@mech.kuleuven.be> <20050616112139.GA2296@compsoc.man.ac.uk> <42B1628A.5020904@suse.de> <20050616114158.GB96172@compsoc.man.ac.uk>

On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 12:41:58PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> So to summarise, the standard doesn't place any strict requirements on
> the behaviour, so it is best not to assume anything more than
> "capacity() will always be greater than or equal to size()" for strings.

It might be possible to assume a bit more.  The standard permits
assignment to reduce the capacity, but the usual reason for doing
reserve() is to speed up a subsequent sequence of append operations.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: std::string::reserve vs std::vector::reserve
  - From: Paolo Carlini

References:
- std::string::reserve vs std::vector::reserve
  - From: Peter Soetens
- Re: std::string::reserve vs std::vector::reserve
  - From: Jonathan Wakely
- Re: std::string::reserve vs std::vector::reserve
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: std::string::reserve vs std::vector::reserve
  - From: Jonathan Wakely

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]