This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: Patch: for libstdc++/2071 test case
- To: rittle at rsch dot comm dot mot dot com
- Subject: Re: Patch: for libstdc++/2071 test case
- From: Phil Edwards <pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 16:33:20 -0400
- Cc: libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <200105100918.f4A9InP94151@latour.rsch.comm.mot.com> <200105161630.f4GGURY31700@latour.rsch.comm.mot.com>
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 11:30:27AM -0500, Loren James Rittle wrote:
> In article <200105100918.f4A9InP94151@latour.rsch.comm.mot.com>, I wrote:
>
> > Here is a tentative patch for libstdc++/2071 which conforms to the
> > design for portability I sent earlier. I expect that some tweaking
> > will be required based on comments (but please read the design
> > requirements before complaining about this patch). libstdc++ was
> > rebuilt twice on i386-unknown-freebsd4.2 from scratch in an otherwise
> > fully-bootstrapped tree (gcc version 3.1 20010508).
>
> Anyone had a chance to think about this yet?
I just made some notes in 2071 and marked it high-priority.
With this patch, the bug still occurs for me on sparc-sun-solaris2.8 (and
yes, I did add the #define to os_defines.h :-). I'm trying to figure
out how to avoid the seeks altogether, but I'm not sure what's best to
test against. Anything done inside needs to be fast...
The RSI is acting up, so I'm going to give my wrist a break and ponder
this for a while.
Phil
--
pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com | pme at sources dot redhat dot com
devphil at several other less interesting addresses in various dot domains
The gods do not protect fools. Fools are protected by more capable fools.