http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45841
--- Comment #20 from Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-10-05 04:02:00 UTC --- (In reply to comment #19) > Apparently > reading after a write at EOF is not in the tests. Good you noticed. > Yeah lol, I don't know if the regression case is really necessary, but I > suppose I should work it in somewhere. It's a requirement for changes to the code-base. The thinking goes, if you have a patch for a bug, you need to a) prove it, and b) make sure the fix doesn't get undone by later patches. > Should I reference this bug in regards > to such a change, or does that make more work for you? Referencing would be slightly better than doing it from scratch, methinks. I don't think I'm doing any extra work here. > Do you mean 22 years of life or 22 years in the field ;v) Um, in the field... It's actually somewhat more, but never mind. > … I think this is > just serendipitous. Today is my 26th birthday, so you're either making me feel > old or just experienced… Not sure I follow your thinking there, but Happy Birthday. Consider this bug report an early gift. :]
