http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45841
--- Comment #36 from Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-10-05 23:29:32 UTC --- (In reply to comment #33) > (In reply to comment #32) > > Thanks for caring but FWIW, my work would not be helped by backing out any > > changes; I do all the work at a fix set of revisions, followed up if needed > > (rarely) at a later revision. I certainly did not have zero fails before, > > but > > they will be much much fewer after this PR is closed! > > Good, I see you are doing an excellent work for your target. Thus, just let me > know when / if you come to the conclusion that there are real issues in the > generic library code, because this is an extremely crucial facility, and we > want to be 100% sure we are not regressing for 4.6.0, even if that means not > making progress. To summarize the comments above, the real issues I know of at r164529 are: 1) an extra lseek (compared to r164529) for 27_io/basic_filebuf/seekoff/char/2-io.cc 2) erroneous behavior that David found, when reading past the end-of-file (In reply to comment #34) > Posted a patch to fix my end of this, and a regression to verify that fix on > working systems. > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2010-10/msg00015.html <nitpick> David, regarding contracting the expression "regression test" into "regression": Don't. It changes the meaning in a bad way: you add a "regression *test*" not a "regression". I hope; at least eventually. :) "Hey guys, I just committed a regression." "Revert immediately and investigate in your local tree." </nitpick>
