From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 102471 invoked by alias); 16 Nov 2017 11:46:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 102450 invoked by uid 89); 16 Nov 2017 11:46:52 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,KAM_SHORT,KB_WAM_FROM_NAME_SINGLEWORD,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=his, yours, HContent-Transfer-Encoding:8bit X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 11:46:51 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38D755F7B9; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 11:46:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unknown [10.33.36.9]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 036F45D9C8; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 11:46:48 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 11:57:00 -0000 From: Jonathan Wakely To: Petr Ovtchenkov Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois?= Dumont , "libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org" , gcc-patches Subject: Re: Make istreambuf_iterator::_M_sbuf immutable and add debug checks Message-ID: <20171116114648.GO31922@redhat.com> References: <09b876d2-a2bc-bc6d-3abc-c3e50d094144@gmail.com> <20171116085159.456c2592@void-ptr.info> <20171116105737.GL31922@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20171116105737.GL31922@redhat.com> X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22) X-SW-Source: 2017-11/txt/msg01319.txt.bz2 On 16/11/17 10:57 +0000, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >On 16/11/17 08:51 +0300, Petr Ovtchenkov wrote: >>On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 22:19:22 +0100 >>François Dumont wrote: >> >>>Hi >>> >>>     Any final decision regarding this patch ? >>> >>>François >> >>https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2017-11/msg00036.html >>https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2017-11/msg00035.html >>https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2017-11/msg00037.html >>https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2017-11/msg00034.html > >It would be helpful if you two could collaborate and come up with a >good solution, or at least discuss the pros and cons, instead of just >sending competing patches. Let me be more clear: I'm not going to review further patches in this area while you two are proposing different alternatives, without commenting on each other's approach. If you think your solution is better than François's solution, you should explain why, not just send a different patch. If François thinks his solution is better than yours, he should state why, not just send a different patch. I don't have time to infer all that from just your patches, so I'm not going to bother.