From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21004 invoked by alias); 5 Oct 2010 23:29:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 20994 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2010 23:29:45 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_40,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 23:29:40 +0000 From: "hp at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/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: libstdc++ X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: hp at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 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" MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 23:29:00 -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/msg00465.txt.bz2 Message-ID: <20101005232900.IxjqkhGQHYJFbgMgIj_yEo8kkkFFbxvjeanUmU2QzCU@z> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45841 --- Comment #36 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2010-10-05 23:29:32 UTC --- (In reply to comment #33) > (In reply to comment #32) > > Thanks for caring but FWIW, my work would not be helped by backing out any > > changes; I do all the work at a fix set of revisions, followed up if needed > > (rarely) at a later revision. I certainly did not have zero fails before, but > > they will be much much fewer after this PR is closed! > > Good, I see you are doing an excellent work for your target. Thus, just let me > know when / if you come to the conclusion that there are real issues in the > generic library code, because this is an extremely crucial facility, and we > want to be 100% sure we are not regressing for 4.6.0, even if that means not > making progress. To summarize the comments above, the real issues I know of at r164529 are: 1) an extra lseek (compared to r164529) for 27_io/basic_filebuf/seekoff/char/2-io.cc 2) erroneous behavior that David found, when reading past the end-of-file (In reply to comment #34) > Posted a patch to fix my end of this, and a regression to verify that fix on > working systems. > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2010-10/msg00015.html David, regarding contracting the expression "regression test" into "regression": Don't. It changes the meaning in a bad way: you add a "regression *test*" not a "regression". I hope; at least eventually. :) "Hey guys, I just committed a regression." "Revert immediately and investigate in your local tree."