From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16152 invoked by alias); 15 Dec 2003 20:07:47 -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 16129 invoked by uid 48); 15 Dec 2003 20:07:46 -0000 Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:07:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20031215200746.16128.qmail@sources.redhat.com> From: "bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20031031094301.12855.peturr02@ru.is> References: <20031031094301.12855.peturr02@ru.is> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/12855] Thread safety problems in ios_base::Init X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2003-12/txt/msg01569.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-12-15 20:07 ------- > I had written testsuite entry too - but that was never added... Now you > see that it was needed! (You just broke that test). Well, add it, or at least propose it as a patch. Sorry I broke this behavior, but if testcases aren't in CVS, I don't run them (nor do I think this unreasonable). Furthermore, getting standard-specified behavior correct is of higher priority than getting extensions working. That being said, if there's a way to fix the extension, by all means propose it, and I'll listen to your arguments. I'm interested in seeing your testcase. The way I see it, ios_base::Init is now picture-perfect RAII, which was the intent of the design in the first place, I think. I'm very curious to see your usage. best, benjamin -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12855