This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: Make istreambuf_iterator::_M_sbuf immutable and add debug checks
- From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely at redhat dot com>
- To: Petr Ovtchenkov <ptr at void-ptr dot info>
- Cc: François Dumont <frs dot dumont at gmail dot com>, "libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org" <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 11:46:48 +0000
- Subject: Re: Make istreambuf_iterator::_M_sbuf immutable and add debug checks
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <09b876d2-a2bc-bc6d-3abc-c3e50d094144@gmail.com> <ad934641-43f4-6ecb-8441-9ba63b733247@gmail.com> <b5f04b01-ecea-4568-fdfb-41e2c6d9cd10@gmail.com> <20171116085159.456c2592@void-ptr.info> <20171116105737.GL31922@redhat.com>
On 16/11/17 10:57 +0000, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 16/11/17 08:51 +0300, Petr Ovtchenkov wrote:
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 22:19:22 +0100
François Dumont <frs.dumont@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi
Any final decision regarding this patch ?
François
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2017-11/msg00036.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2017-11/msg00035.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2017-11/msg00037.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2017-11/msg00034.html
It would be helpful if you two could collaborate and come up with a
good solution, or at least discuss the pros and cons, instead of just
sending competing patches.
Let me be more clear: I'm not going to review further patches in this
area while you two are proposing different alternatives, without
commenting on each other's approach.
If you think your solution is better than François's solution, you
should explain why, not just send a different patch. If François
thinks his solution is better than yours, he should state why, not
just send a different patch.
I don't have time to infer all that from just your patches, so I'm not
going to bother.