use of deleted function \xe2\x80\x98constexpr std::pair<_T1, _T2>::pair(std::pair<_T1, _T2>&&) [with _T1 = int; _T2 = std::mutex; std::pair<_T1, _T2> = std::pair<int, std::mutex>]\xe2\x80\x99\n/usr/include/c++/4.7/bits/stl_pair.h:120:17: note: \xe2\x80\x98...
T2>& p) const {auto h1 = std::hash<T1>{}(p.first);auto h2 = std::hash<T2>{}(p.second);// Mainly for demonstration purposes, i.e. it works but is overly simple// In the real world, use a better hash combining functionreturn h1 ^ h2;}};std::unordered_map<std...
散列器和比较类型包括来自hash和equal声明的**consts**，因此std::unordered_map存储const限定的子对象，并且不可赋值。(The继承与此无关：同样的事情只会发生在类型别名上。
散列器和比较类型包括来自hash和equal声明的**consts**，因此std::unordered_map存储const限定的子对象，并且不可赋值。(The继承与此无关：同样的事情只会发生在类型别名上。
However, due to the bug, clear() does not clear the capacity (i.e. "deallocate") after clearing, therefore the repeated use of the function takes a massive amount of time. → Reply FiniteMoves 2 years ago, # ^ | 0 this bug is in every version of gcc or just in gcc 9.2.1...
问题在于您正在调用initializer_list构造函数。由于initializer_list的工作方式，initializer_list的底层元素是...
This is not a bug report, more of an interesting data point. In the past week I've been trying out absl::flat_hash_map and google::dense_hash_map (and sets) and comparing performance to STL counterparts. The following gist contains bench...