From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5898 invoked by alias); 5 Oct 2010 04:02:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 5860 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2010 04:02:14 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_05,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 04:02:10 +0000 From: "hp at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug testsuite/45841] [4.6 Regression]: r164529 cris-elf libstdc++ 27_io/basic_filebuf/seekoff/char/2-io.cc X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: testsuite X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: hp at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P4 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: hp at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.6.0 X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 04:02:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-10/txt/msg00368.txt.bz2 Message-ID: <20101005040200.bHCpKeQJ4I51qN3Z3eZKL706NhN2r-bdORficBKKEOE@z> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D45841 --- Comment #20 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2010-10-05 = 04:02:00 UTC --- (In reply to comment #19) > Apparently > reading after a write at EOF is not in the tests. Good you noticed. > Yeah lol, I don't know if the regression case is really necessary, but I > suppose I should work it in somewhere. It's a requirement for changes to the code-base. The thinking goes, if you have a patch for a bug, you need to a) prove it, and b) make sure the fix doesn't get undone by later patches. > Should I reference this bug in regards > to such a change, or does that make more work for you? Referencing would be slightly better than doing it from scratch, methinks. I don't think I'm doing any extra work here. > Do you mean 22 years of life or 22 years in the field ;v) Um, in the field... It's actually somewhat more, but never mind. > =E2=80=A6 I think this is > just serendipitous. Today is my 26th birthday, so you're either making me= feel > old or just experienced=E2=80=A6 Not sure I follow your thinking there, but Happy Birthday. Consider this b= ug report an early gift. :]