From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-340319-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 19850 invoked by alias); 12 Dec 2010 18:01:49 -0000
Received: (qmail 19840 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Dec 2010 18:01:48 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 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; Sun, 12 Dec 2010 18:01:43 +0000
From: "marc.glisse at normalesup dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/46906] istreambuf_iterator is late?
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: marc.glisse at normalesup dot org
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-46906-4-7JiaNMOgoR@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"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 18:01:00 -0000
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: 2010-12/txt/msg01302.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46906

--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse <marc.glisse at normalesup dot org> 2010-12-12 18:01:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Yes, this is an old issue,

Oups, sorry, I am not very good at finding old issues in bugzilla...

> as you noticed already other implementations also
> decided that performance issue may take precedence here. After so many years
> with this scheme, I honestly don't think we want to change this before breaking
> the ABI.

Ok, part of my bugreport was to get confirmation that it was indeed a bug
(streams can be confusing at times). I understand from your comment that you
intend to fix it when the ABI is broken for C++0x, which is good enough for me.

Thanks.