public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug libstdc++/10063] [3.4 Regression] stdio_filebuf broken
[not found] <20030313193600.10063.peturr02@ru.is>
@ 2003-07-01 9:49 ` peturr02 at ru dot is
2003-08-23 1:30 ` dhazeghi at yahoo dot com
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: peturr02 at ru dot is @ 2003-07-01 9:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/10063] [3.4 Regression] stdio_filebuf broken
[not found] <20030313193600.10063.peturr02@ru.is>
2003-07-01 9:49 ` [Bug libstdc++/10063] [3.4 Regression] stdio_filebuf broken peturr02 at ru dot is
@ 2003-08-23 1:30 ` dhazeghi at yahoo dot com
2003-12-05 3:24 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: dhazeghi at yahoo dot com @ 2003-08-23 1:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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
dhazeghi at yahoo dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severity|normal |critical
Priority|P3 |P1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/10063] [3.4 Regression] stdio_filebuf broken
[not found] <20030313193600.10063.peturr02@ru.is>
2003-07-01 9:49 ` [Bug libstdc++/10063] [3.4 Regression] stdio_filebuf broken peturr02 at ru dot is
2003-08-23 1:30 ` dhazeghi at yahoo dot com
@ 2003-12-05 3:24 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-12-10 17:37 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-12-10 18:41 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-12-05 3:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severity|critical |normal
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2003-12-05 03:24:26
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10063
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/10063] [3.4 Regression] stdio_filebuf broken
[not found] <20030313193600.10063.peturr02@ru.is>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2003-12-05 3:24 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-12-10 17:37 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-12-10 18:41 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-12-10 17:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-12-10 17:37 -------
Subject: Bug 10063
CVSROOT: /cvs/gcc
Module name: gcc
Changes by: bkoz@gcc.gnu.org 2003-12-10 17:37:25
Modified files:
libstdc++-v3 : ChangeLog
libstdc++-v3/config/io: basic_file_stdio.cc
Added files:
libstdc++-v3/testsuite/ext/stdio_filebuf/char: 10063-1.cc
10063-2.cc
Log message:
2003-12-10 Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz@redhat.com>
PR libstdc++/10063
* config/io/basic_file_stdio.cc (__basic_file::sys_open): Sync.
* testsuite/ext/stdio_filebuf/char/10063-1.cc: New.
* testsuite/ext/stdio_filebuf/char/10063-2.cc: New.
Patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.2148&r2=1.2149
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/libstdc++-v3/config/io/basic_file_stdio.cc.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.24&r2=1.25
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/ext/stdio_filebuf/char/10063-1.cc.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=NONE&r2=1.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/ext/stdio_filebuf/char/10063-2.cc.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=NONE&r2=1.1
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10063
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/10063] [3.4 Regression] stdio_filebuf broken
[not found] <20030313193600.10063.peturr02@ru.is>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2003-12-10 17:37 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-12-10 18:41 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-12-10 18:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-12-10 18:41 -------
Fixed.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10063
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/10063] [3.4 Regression] stdio_filebuf broken
@ 2003-05-23 9:11 paolo@gcc.gnu.org
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: paolo@gcc.gnu.org @ 2003-05-23 9:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-12-10 18:41 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <20030313193600.10063.peturr02@ru.is>
2003-07-01 9:49 ` [Bug libstdc++/10063] [3.4 Regression] stdio_filebuf broken peturr02 at ru dot is
2003-08-23 1:30 ` dhazeghi at yahoo dot com
2003-12-05 3:24 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-12-10 17:37 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-12-10 18:41 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-05-23 9:11 paolo@gcc.gnu.org
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).