public inbox for libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "François Dumont" <frs.dumont@gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com>,
	Petr Ovtchenkov <ptr@void-ptr.info>
Cc: "libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org" <libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org>,
	gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Make istreambuf_iterator::_M_sbuf immutable and add debug checks
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 17:40:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <f0ef2f2e-a180-fab7-1c5c-089ac41805bf@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171116114648.GO31922@redhat.com>

On 16/11/2017 12:46, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> 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 <frs.dumont@gmail.com> 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.
>
>
Proposing to revert my patch doesn't sound to me like a friendly action 
to start a collaboration.

My only concern has always been the Debug mode impact which is now fixed.

I already said that I disagree with Petr's main goal to keep eof 
iterator linked to the underlying stream. So current implementation is 
just fine to me and I'll let Petr argument for any change. @Jonathan, 
You can ignore my last request to remove mutable keywork on _M_sbuf.

François


  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-11-16 17:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 61+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-10-13 17:14 François Dumont
2017-10-23 19:08 ` François Dumont
2017-11-06 21:19   ` François Dumont
2017-11-16  5:52     ` Petr Ovtchenkov
2017-11-16 10:57       ` Jonathan Wakely
2017-11-16 11:46         ` Jonathan Wakely
2017-11-16 12:08           ` Petr Ovtchenkov
2017-11-16 17:40           ` François Dumont [this message]
2017-11-16 18:12             ` Petr Ovtchenkov
2017-11-16 21:31               ` François Dumont
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2017-09-27 20:16 Make tests less istreambuf_iterator implementation dependent François Dumont
2017-09-28 12:12 ` Jonathan Wakely
2017-09-28 19:59   ` François Dumont
2017-09-28 21:56     ` Jonathan Wakely
2017-10-02  5:43       ` François Dumont
2017-10-03 14:20         ` Jonathan Wakely
2017-10-04 16:21           ` François Dumont
2017-10-04 23:23             ` Jonathan Wakely
2017-11-15 20:52             ` [PATCH 1/4] Revert "2017-10-04 Petr Ovtchenkov <ptr@void-ptr.info>" Petr Ovtchenkov
2017-11-15 20:52               ` [PATCH 2/4] libstdc++: istreambuf_iterator keep attached streambuf Petr Ovtchenkov
2017-11-15 20:52                 ` [PATCH 3/4] libstdc++: avoid character accumulation in istreambuf_iterator Petr Ovtchenkov
2017-11-15 20:52                   ` [PATCH 4/4] libstdc++: immutable _M_sbuf " Petr Ovtchenkov
2017-11-15 21:31                   ` [PATCH 3/4] libstdc++: avoid character accumulation " Paolo Carlini
2017-11-16  5:32                     ` Petr Ovtchenkov
2017-11-16  9:39                       ` Paolo Carlini
2017-11-16 11:03                         ` Petr Ovtchenkov
2017-11-16 11:29                           ` Paolo Carlini
2017-11-16 11:41                             ` Petr Ovtchenkov
2017-11-16 11:51                               ` Paolo Carlini
2017-11-16 10:56               ` [PATCH 1/4] Revert "2017-10-04 Petr Ovtchenkov <ptr@void-ptr.info>" Jonathan Wakely
2017-11-16 11:35                 ` Petr Ovtchenkov
2017-11-16 11:39                   ` Jonathan Wakely
2017-11-16 11:40                     ` Jonathan Wakely
2017-11-16 11:57                     ` Petr Ovtchenkov
2017-09-23  7:10 [PATCH] libstdc++: istreambuf_iterator keep attached streambuf Petr Ovtchenkov
2017-09-25 13:46 ` Jonathan Wakely
2017-09-28 10:34 ` Jonathan Wakely
2017-09-28 12:06   ` Petr Ovtchenkov
2017-09-28 12:38     ` Jonathan Wakely
2017-10-03 20:39       ` Petr Ovtchenkov
2017-10-04  5:04         ` [PATCH v2] " Petr Ovtchenkov
2017-10-06 16:01         ` [PATCH] libstdc++: istreambuf_iterator proxy (was: keep attached streambuf) François Dumont
2017-10-06 18:00           ` Petr Ovtchenkov
2017-10-08 14:59             ` [PATCH] libstdc++: istreambuf_iterator proxy François Dumont
2017-10-09 19:32               ` Petr Ovtchenkov
2017-10-10  5:52               ` Petr Ovtchenkov
2017-10-10 14:21           ` [PATCH] libstdc++: istreambuf_iterator proxy (was: keep attached streambuf) Jonathan Wakely
2017-08-24 11:27 [PATCH] streambuf_iterator: avoid debug-dependent behaviour Petr Ovtchenkov
2017-08-29 20:02 ` François Dumont
2017-08-30  5:05   ` Petr Ovtchenkov
2017-08-31 20:30     ` François Dumont
2017-09-01  9:10 ` Jonathan Wakely
2017-09-07 21:02   ` François Dumont
2017-09-08  5:47     ` Petr Ovtchenkov
2017-09-08  6:15       ` François Dumont
2017-09-09 20:17       ` François Dumont
2017-09-21  5:46         ` François Dumont
2017-09-28 10:50           ` Jonathan Wakely
2017-09-28 10:58             ` Jonathan Wakely
2017-09-21 18:23   ` Petr Ovtchenkov
2017-09-25  9:34     ` Petr Ovtchenkov

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=f0ef2f2e-a180-fab7-1c5c-089ac41805bf@gmail.com \
    --to=frs.dumont@gmail.com \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=jwakely@redhat.com \
    --cc=libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=ptr@void-ptr.info \
    /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).