Mailing-List: contact dev-help@stdcxx.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of stefan.teleman@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.220.182 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <50547C22.1000604@hates.ms>
References: <40394653-8FCC-4D04-A108-2C650AF8F95B@hates.ms>
	<CALdE9OCPSs6pcpMFZ+6rq6O+BXJJ+E-QEC1jDSoOb4xn2FiN=g@mail.gmail.com>
	<50481DDC.6010906@gmail.com>
	<5048A224.7060402@hates.ms>
	<CALdE9OCy=8awBwaE4cc1bGURx=DWX9HQBA4JF-kgY6a+9hEaAg@mail.gmail.com>
	<5048CC76.5060603@gmail.com>
	<CALdE9OCO298AmkwWJcuMkMOG7kym9vqHYwnfh3pA2m5Jf_gqUw@mail.gmail.com>
	<5049016D.8000902@gmail.com>
	<CALdE9OAXm7UsjR+O8TsAHUa6h1cxkiA-mq7YN5asg3Ci2mw4kA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALdE9ODiPtTK8UYe+rKgfcBf350-WkiNu9LUgE=gM6313JLLYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<504E2440.1060706@gmail.com>
	<CALdE9OBED+0p+JzkN=Zqk+VSFvj4nv6VN6AE1o7E817CeL7KUQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALdE9OBhD8GLeQP8Z5F8Lo8DtxYXfBMAP0ZjQzxqB32YnsnJ4g@mail.gmail.com>
	<504FE7F9.90102@gmail.com>
	<504FF10E.8020506@hates.ms>
	<CALdE9OB9XPF6f+nH9S-=9NAE0Fj2D44JmXudD00-BXrk0=bU3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<50508849.4070708@hates.ms>
	<CALdE9OA-nNDcgzb7evuYuX2m_1CS7VW9krdaLO64v5OfHBRGcQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALdE9OC4y-MsNpjBtYMxoxuc-U3JLGcVAwaeDUWXa_18zauMAQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<50547C22.1000604@hates.ms>
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2012 13:51:17 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CALdE9OBXbd5SKWSUtc_5_GznSDmruZuwLxJ2Xeoc1YZ3F_UdPA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: STDCXX-1056 [was: Re: STDCXX forks]
From: Stefan Teleman <stefan.teleman@gmail.com>
To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Liviu Nicoara <nikkoara@hates.ms> wrote:

> That is funny. What compiler are you using? What does the following test
> case return for you?

It's the Intel compiler with the patched stdcxx for  the wrong case
and GCC 4.7.1 + GNU libstdc++ for  the correct case.

GCC + GNU libstdc++ are correct.

The patched facet does not call the protected do_*() virtual functions
from their public counterparts, as it is required to do by the
Standard. Instead, it returns the data mebers directly (the data
members were initialized in the constructor). That is the patch you
proposed, which is indeed much better performing than using a mutex
lock. Unfortunately, in doing so, overriding the virtual functions in
a derived facet type becomes pointless.

--Stefan

-- 
Stefan Teleman
KDE e.V.
stefan.teleman@gmail.com