[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Austin group ruling on ungetc vs. fflush
From: |
Bruno Haible |
Subject: |
Re: Austin group ruling on ungetc vs. fflush |
Date: |
Sat, 17 Jan 2009 14:17:33 +0100 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.9.9 |
Hi Eric,
> > "The value of the file-position indicator for the stream after
> > reading or discarding all pushed-back bytes shall be the same
> > as it was before the bytes were pushed back."
> > ! 3) Here we are discarding all pushed-back bytes.
> > !
> > ! Unfortunately it is impossible to implement this on platforms with
> > ! _IOERR, because an ungetc() on this platform prepends the pushed-back
> > ! bytes to the buffer without an indication of the limit between the
> > ! pushed-back bytes and the read-ahead bytes. */
> > ! clear_ungetc_buffer (stream);
That comment was in the "old" hunk; it is gone now. Incidentally, the
Austin Group's resolution for 1a and 2a matches the behaviour of the platforms
with _IOERR (except mingw). So, there is no problem on these platforms any
more.
Bruno
- Austin group ruling on ungetc vs. fflush, Eric Blake, 2009/01/09
- Re: Austin group ruling on ungetc vs. fflush, Bruno Haible, 2009/01/15
- Re: Austin group ruling on ungetc vs. fflush, Eric Blake, 2009/01/15
- Re: Austin group ruling on ungetc vs. fflush, Bruno Haible, 2009/01/17
- Re: Austin group ruling on ungetc vs. fflush, Eric Blake, 2009/01/17
- Re: Austin group ruling on ungetc vs. fflush, Bruno Haible, 2009/01/17
Re: Austin group ruling on ungetc vs. fflush, Bruno Haible, 2009/01/15