This is the mail archive of the libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the libstdc++ project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [RFC/Patch] What about using seekoff(-1, ...) for unbuffered underflow?

From: pcarlini at unitus dot it
To: pcarlini at unitus dot it
Cc: Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org, ncm at cantrip dot org
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 17:28:06 +0200
Subject: Re: [RFC/Patch] What about using seekoff(-1, ...) for unbuffered underflow?
References: <3EE0876C.4060004@unitus.it> <20030606095012.395f7e53.bkoz@redhat.com> <1054912867.3ee0b163b98f3@193.205.144.18>

> and I think that, for top performance, people really want a fast unbuffered
> sbumpc().

Of course, I really meant here "a fast buffered sbumpc()", sorry.

Paolo.

References:
- [RFC/Patch] What about using seekoff(-1, ...) for unbuffered underflow?
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [RFC/Patch] What about using seekoff(-1, ...) for unbufferedunderflow?
  - From: Benjamin Kosnik
- Re: [RFC/Patch] What about using seekoff(-1, ...) for unbuffered underflow?
  - From: pcarlini

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