From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-340322-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 28932 invoked by alias); 12 Dec 2010 18:28:13 -0000
Received: (qmail 28906 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Dec 2010 18:28:12 -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 18:28:08 +0000
From: "paolo.carlini at oracle dot com" <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: paolo.carlini at oracle 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-46906-4-95d693AHG9@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 18:28:00 -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/msg01305.txt.bz2

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

--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> 2010-12-12 18:28:02 UTC ---
To be clear: I remember discussing this issue with Nathan many years ago, when
we noticed that variance among implementations, and that we considered more
strictly conforming not buffering anything (but also much worse perfoming in
many normal circumstances). But now I don't have a final word on that, should
at least collect my old notes. As I mentioned already, anyway, even if we
wanted to do the change now, it would risk breaking compatibility or leaving
the _M_c member unused or other ugly options. Definitely something to be
re-evaluated when the ABI is broken.