Re: filebuf::fd()

[Phil Edwards <pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com>]

[I'm expanding this discussion to the larger gcc list.  We don't have
anything approaching consensus yet, and the clock is ticking for 3.1...]


There've been about 10 followups to my proposed patch on 3 December:

    http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2001-12/msg00037.html

Ignore the 0 -> NULL rewrite; they convinced me to drop it.


A summary, to avoid having the same debate for a third time:

Gaby and I are of the same opinion:  we should be exposing the same pointer
that the library itself uses as a wrapper layer, and not be making any
assumptions about what lies beneath, especially since the library itself
never uses a file descriptor.

Nathan feels we should be doing more work with a file descriptor, that
the patch I posted is the right approach, and that "since the library
itself never uses a file descriptor" is in fact a bug.  This seems to be
more popular.

Theo Papadopoulo provided a good summary and overview later on the same day;
his message is in the archives.


If we're going to provide this as an extension in 3.1, we need to finalize
this before the end of Phase 2, six days from now.

I'd also like to agree on a method of disabling such extensions, as
pointed to in my posting above.  Preferably on a more selective basis than
all-or-none, but whatever.  (I have an __attribute__ patch in my local
tree that would help, I think, but it's currently a piece of crap.  *grin*)


Phil

-- 
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater
than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace.  We seek
not your counsel, nor your arms.  Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you;
and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.            - Samuel Adams