public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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?
Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2011 14:02:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-46906-4-vRg5iA2Bii@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-46906-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

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

--- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse <marc.glisse at normalesup dot org> 2011-09-05 14:01:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Why do you think that either implementation form could be
> considered as non-conforming?

When I read that operator* returns sgetc(), I understand that as 
assert(*i==buf.sgetc()).

If there really is a provision that lets *i return what buf.sgetc() used to
return (I am not convinced the (void)*a,*a thing is it), it would be nice to
remind it in the definition of operator*. And I guess I don't really like this
kind of unspecified behavior... (it is very different from copy elision for
instance)

But it wouldn't be the first time that it is my understanding of the standard
that is at fault ;-)


  parent reply	other threads:[~2011-09-05 14:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-12-12 15:26 [Bug libstdc++/46906] New: " marc.glisse at normalesup dot org
2010-12-12 17:38 ` [Bug libstdc++/46906] " paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2010-12-12 18:01 ` marc.glisse at normalesup dot org
2010-12-12 18:28 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2011-09-05  9:49 ` daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
2011-09-05 10:00 ` marc.glisse at normalesup dot org
2011-09-05 11:11 ` daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
2011-09-05 12:39 ` marc.glisse at normalesup dot org
2011-09-05 12:57 ` daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
2011-09-05 14:02 ` marc.glisse at normalesup dot org [this message]
2011-09-05 14:17 ` daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
2011-09-05 15:06 ` marc.glisse at normalesup dot org
2012-08-22 20:00 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-17 14:46 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-46906-4-vRg5iA2Bii@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).