Re: [RFC] Two versions of struct _Rb_tree_impl... or not?!

["Dhruv Matani" <dhruvbird at gmx dot net>]

> Dhruv Matani wrote:
> 
> >Yes precuisely. Actually, the original code did do exactly that and
> reduced
> >the size of the rb_tree, but it failed reg-testing, so it ws removed.
> >However, I do have a patch ready. (I had posted it to the list about a
> month
> >ago)
> >  
> >
> Ok, now I see. Thanks.
> 
> Are you talking about this patch
> 
>     http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2004-04/msg00079.html

Yes.

> 
> ???
> 
> Is it regtested, up to date, etc., etc. ... ?

Yes, but just to be sure, just run it once more, because I think that
someone may have touched rb_tree.h after I submitted that patch.

-Dhruv.


ps. Loren, this was the patch I was talking about.
    Paolo, have you looked into bitmap_allocator, and the problems faced
when configured as the default. I tried but couldn't figure out anything
beyond the last file that I sent you.

Thanks!

-- 
+++ Jetzt WLAN-Router für alle DSL-Einsteiger und Wechsler +++
GMX DSL-Powertarife zudem 3 Monate gratis* http://www.gmx.net/dsl