From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-367140-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 23936 invoked by alias); 5 Sep 2011 12:57:09 -0000
Received: (qmail 23927 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Sep 2011 12:57:08 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
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; Mon, 05 Sep 2011 12:56:48 +0000
From: "daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/46906] istreambuf_iterator is late?
Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2011 12:57:00 -0000
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: daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-46906-4-06l6uhoie6@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-46906-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-46906-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-09/txt/msg00317.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D46906

--- Comment #8 from Daniel Kr=C3=BCgler <daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot =
com> 2011-09-05 12:56:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Oh, are you saying that this rule has priority over the one that says that
> operator* just forwards to sgetc?=20

This was not my intention, but I recognize that my last response can be read
that way.

> That would actually require istreambuf_iterator to keep the last value in=
 cache the way libstdc++ does.=20

This is not required, but I don't see why this should be excluded by the
specification. Why do you think that either implementation form could be
considered as non-conforming?