This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug libstdc++/21286] [4.0/4.1 Regression] filebuf::xsgetn vs pipes
- From: "pcarlini at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 18 Jul 2005 15:56:55 -0000
- Subject: [Bug libstdc++/21286] [4.0/4.1 Regression] filebuf::xsgetn vs pipes
- References: <20050429155408.21286.ralfixx@gmx.de>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-07-18 15:56 -------
> Let's pronounce it [kəˈpʊt] then :-)
> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Kaput
Yes. My point was simply that in order to have the attention of the maintainers
you don't need to use exagerated expressions. Generally, technical explanations
are much better for that. Overstating the issue is more suited to make someone
nervous and, likely, obtain exactly the opposite effect.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21286