From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14110 invoked by alias); 5 Oct 2010 23:34:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 14008 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2010 23:34:53 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,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 23:34:48 +0000 From: "paolo.carlini at oracle dot com" 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: paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 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 23:34:00 -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/msg00467.txt.bz2 Message-ID: <20101005233400.RNDNKBThuPQ6GJMvKUAvVt5EPdYl2rjudQOFQcNwNkQ@z> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45841 --- Comment #38 from Paolo Carlini 2010-10-05 23:34:37 UTC --- > 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 Ok, thanks for the summary. Thus it looks like we are in good shape (David said in a previous message that 1) isn't really worth optimizing for, if I remember correctly). > (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 Good, I'm going to apply it here, give it a spin and commit it if everything looks fine. > > 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. :) I must say I totally agree. More substantively, please, at your ease, figure out a more complete and independent testcase. The normal rule is: one bug report, one testcase.