http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45841
--- Comment #38 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> 2010-10-05 23:34:37 UTC --- > To summarize the comments above, the real issues I know of at r164529 are: > 1) an extra lseek (compared to r164529) for > 27_io/basic_filebuf/seekoff/char/2-io.cc > 2) erroneous behavior that David found, when reading past the end-of-file Ok, thanks for the summary. Thus it looks like we are in good shape (David said in a previous message that 1) isn't really worth optimizing for, if I remember correctly). > (In reply to comment #34) > > Posted a patch to fix my end of this, and a regression to verify that fix on > > working systems. > > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2010-10/msg00015.html Good, I'm going to apply it here, give it a spin and commit it if everything looks fine. > <nitpick> > David, regarding contracting the expression "regression test" into > "regression": Don't. It changes the meaning in a bad way: you add a > "regression *test*" not a "regression". I hope; at least eventually. :) I must say I totally agree. More substantively, please, at your ease, figure out a more complete and independent testcase. The normal rule is: one bug report, one testcase.
