Re: [boost] Bug/Incompatibility: Visual C++ 2005 checkediteratorslead to major crashes

From: Victor A. Wagner Jr. (vawjr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-17 15:49:15

At 11:37 2006-06-17, you wrote:
>"Victor A. Wagner Jr." <vawjr_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
> > At 12:14 2006-06-15, John Maddock wrote:
> >>David Abrahams wrote:
> >> > a. I don't think you're actually agreeing with me.  Maybe
> >> >   s/carefully/seriously/?
> >> >
> >> > b. Normally our default is not the same as the compiler's default when
> >> >   the compiler's default is nonconformant, as it is in this case.
> >>
> >>I missed (well forgot actually) that the compiler was non-comforming
> >
> > "in that mode"
> >
> > in which "mode" ??
>
>In the mode where std::vector<T>::iterator is "checked."  The type
>has the right syntax and mostly the right semantics but doesn't meet
>the complexity requirements to be a conforming iterator.

I looked at the standard and I don't see anything other than "must be 
constant" for the operators provided, hence the missing "complexity 
column" from the tables.  I understand they take much longer to 
execute than the non checked ones, but I don't find any loops (which 
would indicate an O(n) or worse) in  <vector> .
All the conditional code seems to be in the same path and executed no 
more often which makes it difficult to see how it changes big-O

>--
>Dave Abrahams
>Boost Consulting
>www.boost-consulting.com
>
>_______________________________________________
>Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

Victor A. Wagner Jr.      http://rudbek.com
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
               "There oughta be a law"