--- Additional Comments From ncm-nospam at cantrip dot org 2005-04-30
15:48 ---
A note for Ralf: It is incorrect to use cin.eof() to watch for the end
of a stream. The correct flag to check is fail(). eof() is really
meant for seeing if that's why op>> failed.
--- Additional Comments From ncm-nospam at cantrip dot org 2005-04-30
03:49 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> ... Thus, if you're writing structs, the reader will
> see half a struct.
Sorry, that's "will never see half a struct".
--
http://gcc.gnu.or
--- Additional Comments From ncm-nospam at cantrip dot org 2005-04-30
02:11 ---
Just to add... if sgetn() loops reading until it gets n bytes, but
underflow() accepts a pipe's short reads, then in_avail() will report
the size of the short read. Then, istream::read_some() will
--- Additional Comments From ncm-nospam at cantrip dot org 2005-04-20
18:43 ---
I agree with Andrew. The compiler was improved enough not to fail to
report this error. The Right Thing is probably just to delete the
explicit instantiations, if it's not code to go in a shared li
--- Additional Comments From ncm-nospam at cantrip dot org 2005-01-31
05:29 ---
Hmm, precisely two additional casts (or local unions), each in a
statement where a cast already appears, hardly seems like a "load".
But I'm always patient, right? It's just that
--- Additional Comments From ncm-nospam at cantrip dot org 2005-01-24
03:42 ---
I have read the discussion on 17744 and 19163. Nothing there suggests
that there is any reason to prefer using an __attribute__ over using
the portable, stable, apparently already-working union approach
--- Additional Comments From ncm-nospam at cantrip dot org 2005-01-23
03:52 ---
Somebody mentioned that using unions for type punning was described
in the textbooks as extremely bad form. That's how I always thought
of it, too, but it seems, at least in Gcc, unions are now the
--- Additional Comments From ncm-nospam at cantrip dot org 2005-01-21
17:45 ---
Do I understand correctly that the FE fix has been applied? I don't
see any corresponding __attribute__ in HEAD for basic_string.h.
Probably _Rep should be aligned not to a constant size, but rather t
--- Additional Comments From ncm-nospam at cantrip dot org 2005-01-21
16:39 ---
I agree that 8670 is a separate bug.
The referenced test 2.cc can be made to fail more reliably with
the following changes:
First, leave enough space for alignment adjustments, even on 128-bit
machines
--- Additional Comments From ncm-nospam at cantrip dot org 2005-01-21
15:37 ---
Hmm, it's a little more complicated than I said, although it might be
academic. There's an implicit assumption in the code that any type
on which basic_string<> might be instantiated
--- Additional Comments From ncm-nospam at cantrip dot org 2005-01-21
15:22 ---
This is a real bug, but easily fixed, and (I think) without breaking ABI.
The problem is in basic_string.h, where it says
struct _Rep : _Rep_base
{
// Types:
typedef typename _Alloc::template
11 matches
Mail list logo
