Paul C. Leopardi wrote: >Hi Chris, >Thanks for your reply. My responses are below. >Best, Paul >On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 08:56 pm, random@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > >>Paul C. Leopardi wrote: >> >> >>>Hi, >>>Two related questions. >>> >>>1. Is the difference in interface between __gnu_cxx::hash_map and >>>std::tr1::unordered_map documented anywhere? Does the fact that I can't >>>find any such gcc - specific documentation mean that >>>std::tr1::unordered_map is a trivial drop-in replacement for >>>__gnu_cxx::hash_map ? >>> >>> >>Unfortunatly it's not. There isn't explicit differences documented >>either. Documentation for tr1::unordered_map is contained in >>http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2005/n1745.pdf >> >>If you get a copy of the complete g++ source code, then look in >>libstdc++-v3/testsuite/tr1/6_containers/ you'll find the testsuite for >>the unordered containers, which should at least show the basics of how >>they work, although I'll admit not documented. >> >> > >Thanks. I took a look at the documentation for TR1 and the source code. The >tests don't look like they test std::tr1::unordered_map< K, T >, where K is a >user defined class. All the tests look like they use std::string for K. >So maybe std::tr1::unordered_map< K, T > is not supposed to work? > >AFAICT, since I have a user defined key class K, I need to define my own >hash< K > class. I did this and now have a strange compilation error message. > > > Hmm.. looks like they are actually seriously badly tested.. For example, just std::tr1::unordered_set<int> i,j; i=j; fails to compile! I'll submit that as a bug, and it should get fixed. Looks like they are somewhat less tested than I thought :)
