This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Bug still in 3.0.1

On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 03:12:55AM -0700, David Rasmussen wrote:
> I was under the impression that if I reported the bug
> to gnats (which I did) and got the bug acknowledged by
> some guy responsible for handling my gnats submit
> (which it was) and if that guy even reported what the
> bug was, and implicitly how it should be fixed (which
> he did), then the bugfix would at sometime be in a
> future release of gcc.

All true.

> And now that this bug wasn't in
> 2.95.3, I was under the impression that if a fix was
> available, it would be in 3.0.1 .

It's the "if" clause there that's causing problems.

> It is a severe bug IMO, and I suspect an easy fix,
> even if I haven't checked the source code of
> in_avail(), because this is sort of a boundary case
> (there are zero elements in the buffer), and could be
> dealt with seperately, if not in any other way.

Yeah... it's easy to return pessimistic results, though.  I don't want to
start a discussion here and now (wrong list, and I don't have the time), but
once I get these concept-checking changes out of my local tree, I have some
ideas to propose on the libstdc++ list.


Would I had phrases that are not known, utterances that are strange, in
new language that has not been used, free from repetition, not an utterance
which has grown stale, which men of old have spoken.
                                     - anonymous Egyptian scribe, c.1700 BC

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]