From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2116 invoked by alias); 1 Jul 2003 09:49:00 -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 2101 invoked by uid 48); 1 Jul 2003 09:49:00 -0000 Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 09:49:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030701094900.2099.qmail@sources.redhat.com> From: "peturr02 at ru dot is" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20030313193600.10063.peturr02@ru.is> References: <20030313193600.10063.peturr02@ru.is> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/10063] [3.4 Regression] stdio_filebuf broken X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg00023.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 ------- Additional Comments From peturr02 at ru dot is 2003-07-01 09:48 ------- Paolo Carlini wrote: > 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. Since this class doesn't use stdio any more, it should be named something other than stdio_filebuf. > Perhaps we should just hit the bullet and > declare that this is now possible only with stdio_sync_filebuf? Sounds good. stdio_filebuf was never really well suited for this purpose. Petur