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: Make istreambuf_iterator::_M_sbuf immutable and add debug checks


On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 11:46:48 +0000
Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com> wrote:

> 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.
> 

References here is a notification that

   - there is another opinion;
   - discussion is in another thread.

Nothing more.


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