Re: [patch] No allocation for empty unordered containers

[Jonathan Wakely <jwakely at redhat dot com>]

On 09/09/14 10:23 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 08/09/14 20:22 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
> > On 02/09/2014 12:05, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > > It's OK to document it with a Doxygen comment, although I think it
> > > would be better in doc/xml/manual/containers.xml.
> >
> > Hi
> >
> >   Here is the doc patch, I eventually found where you had documented it.
>
> Ah yes, I forgot it's with the implementation defined properties.
>
> > Index: doc/xml/manual/status_cxx2011.xml
> > ===================================================================
> > --- doc/xml/manual/status_cxx2011.xml	(revision 215005)
> > +++ doc/xml/manual/status_cxx2011.xml	(working copy)
> > @@ -2625,8 +2625,8 @@
> >      <emphasis>23.5.5.2 [unord.multimap.cnstr]</emphasis>,
> >      <emphasis>23.5.6.2 [unord.set.cnstr]</emphasis>,
> >      <emphasis>23.5.7.2 [unord.multiset.cnstr]</emphasis>
> > -      The default bucket count is 10 for the default constructors
> > -      and 0 for the range constructors and initializer-list constructors.
> > +      The default minimal bucket count is always 0 to avoid allocation at
> > +      instantiation as much as possible.
> >   </para>
> >
> >   <para>
>
> I think it should talk about construction (or initialization) not
> instantiation. Instantiation means something different for templates.

And we don't need to give a rationale here, it just needs to define
the value, so you could just change as little as possible:

     The default bucket count is 0 for the default constructors,
     range constructors and initializer-list constructors.