From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8468 invoked by alias); 23 May 2003 08:59:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 8449 invoked by uid 48); 23 May 2003 08:59:04 -0000 Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 09:11:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030523085904.8448.qmail@sources.redhat.com> From: "paolo@gcc.gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/10063] [3.4 Regression] stdio_filebuf broken X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg02253.txt.bz2 List-Id: PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10063 paolo@gcc.gnu.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|paolo@gcc.gnu.org |bkoz@gcc.gnu.org Status|ASSIGNED |NEW ------- Additional Comments From paolo@gcc.gnu.org 2003-05-23 08:59 ------- Benjamin, I'm tentatively assigning this to you as the guy currently working on those issues. Personally, I don't know what should we really do in order to be able to intermix flawlessly the current stdio_filebuf - which, at variance with the old situation ends up always issuing direct non blocking I/O syscalls, i.e., read, write, lseek and so on - with stdio. Perhaps we should just hit the bullet and declare that this is now possible only with stdio_sync_filebuf? What do you think? Paolo. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.