From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 54165 invoked by alias); 16 Nov 2017 17:40:24 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libstdc++-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libstdc++-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 54144 invoked by uid 89); 16 Nov 2017 17:40:23 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_SHORT,KB_WAM_FROM_NAME_SINGLEWORD,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=H*M:fab7, his, yours X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: mail-wr0-f173.google.com Received: from mail-wr0-f173.google.com (HELO mail-wr0-f173.google.com) (209.85.128.173) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 17:40:22 +0000 Received: by mail-wr0-f173.google.com with SMTP id k61so23546002wrc.4; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 09:40:21 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=LtuJVvMjuNBkqQ36gKA2c/wV2GUpQjpRMtNQoy/gke0=; b=JagAOMiqn+5PRgFVD8X1y+MyTMQcVzb92jNiGe0MXrsDFMVsAHmfrV0BVXQX7Dl7Yc PRuJRHPXlKn6ehQ0iFSCLSjKGvw7ddo+4E54zWk97x1/vo8nGoMteYoHUcD4vuAPF3Zy LTwjM1pNPeI0G2BAs6GX3VQBaqtEkIE/Qb/1zC8s9lrtZ2xD/H4OJXgoQqK2GRfiQUF8 WmKwI5ISbalRen0ENsxAUTLH/SYlQjZq/WNOlpSZr8oNTlDApd0fUqhfC8kdV2pScFq5 ogowc1ozQ2F7OFaLqSUPcn40oIACdjepRgkZ4QCybxS4m3D9ElEmXxX8uL6OxhBy5vRF ehhA== X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX7na92afAYdVlOFOO8Y6NmJ5li8U2p9qpsFcqpk6VHaKDjxp1jg P2z496jvAANZ9HPnEpyt0ml2sA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMaUxi9n0eQ503VhlZtMAwVr3W+cVIJOgxNueMgUEYv24GV1PpwYEVfo9AzcN6PhOYXsNVCBWw== X-Received: by 10.223.170.150 with SMTP id h22mr2127439wrc.26.1510854019769; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 09:40:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.40.9.60] ([109.190.253.11]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id q15sm960163wra.91.2017.11.16.09.40.13 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 16 Nov 2017 09:40:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Make istreambuf_iterator::_M_sbuf immutable and add debug checks To: Jonathan Wakely , Petr Ovtchenkov Cc: "libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org" , gcc-patches References: <09b876d2-a2bc-bc6d-3abc-c3e50d094144@gmail.com> <20171116085159.456c2592@void-ptr.info> <20171116105737.GL31922@redhat.com> <20171116114648.GO31922@redhat.com> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Fran=c3=a7ois_Dumont?= Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 17:40:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20171116114648.GO31922@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-11/txt/msg00055.txt.bz2 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 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