Make istreambuf_iterator::_M_sbuf immutable and add debug checks

François Dumont frs.dumont@gmail.com
Thu Nov 16 21:31:00 GMT 2017


On 16/11/2017 19:12, Petr Ovtchenkov wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 18:40:08 +0100
> François Dumont <frs.dumont@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 16/11/2017 12:46, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>> Proposing to revert my patch doesn't sound to me like a friendly action
>> to start a collaboration.
> I'm already say that this is technical issue: this patch present only in
> trunk yet.
Doesn't explain why you want to revert it.
>   Series is more useful for applying in different branches.
Which branches ? There are mostly maintenance branches. None of your 
patches is fixing a bug so it won't go to a maintenance branch.
> BTW, https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2017-11/msg00037.html
> was inspired by you https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2017-10/msg00029.html
Which was already rejected, why submitting it again ?
>
>> So current implementation is
>> just fine to me and I'll let Petr argument for any change.
> Please, clear for me: what is the "current implementation"?
> Is it what we see now in trunk?
Yes. Other proposals were mostly code quality changes. None of them had 
no impact so Jonathan decision to keep current implementation is just fine.



More information about the Libstdc++ mailing list