On 16/11/2017 19:12, Petr Ovtchenkov wrote:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 18:40:08 +0100
François Dumont 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 Thu, 16 Nov 2017 18:40:08 +0100
François Dumont wrote:
> On 16/11/2017 12:46, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On 16/11/17 10:57 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >> On 16/11/17 08:51 +0300, Petr Ovtchenkov wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 22:19:22 +0100
> >>> François Dumont wrote:
> >>>
> Hi
>
On 16/11/2017 12:46, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 16/11/17 10:57 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 16/11/17 08:51 +0300, Petr Ovtchenkov wrote:
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 22:19:22 +0100
François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Any final decision regarding this patch ?
François
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 11:46:48 +
Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 16/11/17 10:57 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >On 16/11/17 08:51 +0300, Petr Ovtchenkov wrote:
> >>On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 22:19:22 +0100
> >>François Dumont wrote:
> >>
> >>>Hi
> >>>
> >>> Any final decision regarding this patch ?
>
On 16/11/17 10:57 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 16/11/17 08:51 +0300, Petr Ovtchenkov wrote:
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 22:19:22 +0100
François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Any final decision regarding this patch ?
François
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2017-11/msg00036.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/
On 16/11/17 08:51 +0300, Petr Ovtchenkov wrote:
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 22:19:22 +0100
François Dumont 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.
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 22:19:22 +0100
François Dumont 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
htt
Hi
Any final decision regarding this patch ?
François
On 23/10/2017 21:08, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
I completed execution of all tests and found one test impacted by
this patch.
It is a good example of the impact of the patch. Users won't be
able to build a istreambuf_iter
Hi
I completed execution of all tests and found one test impacted by
this patch.
It is a good example of the impact of the patch. Users won't be
able to build a istreambuf_iterator at a point where the underlying
streambuf is at end-of-stream and then put some data in the streambuf
Hi
Here is the last patch I will propose for istreambuf_iterator.
This is mostly to remove the mutable keyword on _M_sbuf.
To do so I had to reset _M_sbuf in valid places that is to say
constructors and increment operators. Despite that we might still have
eof iterators with _M_sbu
10 matches
Mail list logo