------- Comment #2 from trumsko at yahoo dot com 2006-03-28 20:58 -------
o.k. I read the comments to libstdc++/9439 and browsed through section 27.5.2
of the ISO standtard again. Unfortunatly I didn't find the proof, that the
example program realy behaves contrary to the standard, as I only found the
statement in section 27.5.2.4.4 that the postconditions for pbackfail() are the
same as for underflow() but I didn't find the exact postconditions for
underflow().
I'm not complaining about the return value of sungetc() (acutally I fully
agree), but I complain, that two failing calls of sungetc() at the beginning of
a file influence the next call of sbumpc() and even worse depending on the
state of the buffer.
My oppinion is, that an abitrary number of sungetc() at the beginning of a file
should not have the effect, that the next sbumpc() returns the first character
of the file. Independent to the state of the buffer. This is not the case. The
example code proves, that under certain cirumstances a sbumpc() does _not_
return the first character of the file.
Cheers Troban.
--
trumsko at yahoo dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26907
