C++11: Is it safe to remove individual elements from std::unordered_map while iterating?

Question

Consider the canonical algorithm for removing an element from an associative container while iterating:

for (auto iter = myMap.begin(); iter != myMap.end(); )
{
    if (/* removal condition */)
    {
        iter = myMap.erase(iter);
    }
    else
    {
        ++iter;
    }
}

I've been applying this algorithm without a second thought when using the C++11 std::unordered_map container. However, after browsing the documentation for std::unordered_map::erase on cppreference.com, I became a little concerned after reading the following note:

The order of the elements that are not erased is preserved (this makes it possible to erase individual elements while iterating through the container) (since C++14)

Based on this statement, I'm assuming there was language added to the C++14 standard to ensure library implementers guarantee ordering after a call to std::unordered_map::erase. For example, maybe such a requirement constrains the implementation from not rehashing the entire container after an element is removed, but rather only allows it to remove the element from its corresponding bucket?

Without such a guarantee in C++11, and if I desire my code to be portable, do I have to worry that some elements will be visited multiple times or not at all if I remove an element from an std::unordered_map during iteration?

Answer 1

Edit: The dangers of NoScript. I had noscript running, which displayed the C11 and C14 tabs as one box. Praetorian's answer is correct about it being guaranteed in practice, and formalized in c14.

** Below is wrong due to noscript.

At the bottom of cplusplus it states that

Only the iterators and references to the elements removed are invalidated.

The rest are unaffected.

The relative order of iteration of the elements not removed by the operation is preserved.

http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/unordered_map/unordered_map/erase/

At the top of the page, it states it's for C++11...so unless they updated it for C++14, i think it applies to C++11 as well. Praetorian should put an answer and you should check his for the answer, because even if it's not guaranteed in the standard for C++11 (C++14 being the patch for these sort of things), it's guaranteed in practice.

I couldn't find the STL standard, I seem to have misplaced it, or I'd go see if there was a text guaranteed I could point to. :-/