From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21957 invoked by alias); 5 Sep 2011 14:02:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 21943 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Sep 2011 14:02:02 -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 14:01:44 +0000 From: "marc.glisse at normalesup dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/46906] istreambuf_iterator is late? Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2011 14:02:00 -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: 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: 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 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: 2011-09/txt/msg00322.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46906 --- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse 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 ;-)