This code:
#include
#include
#include
#include
int main()
{
std::remove(\"test.txt\");
Ok, it is not a bug, even it seems that it is required behavior:
According to C++ 2003 standard:
tellg(): (27.6.1.3)
After constructing a sentry object, if fail() != false, returns pos_type(-1) to indicate failure. Otherwise, returns rdbuf()->pubseekoff(0, cur, in).
sentry (27.6.1.1.2):
if noskipws is zero and is.flags() & ios_base::skipws is nonzero, the func- tion extracts and discards each character as long as the next available input character c is a whitespace character. If is.rdbuf()->sbumpc() or is.rdbuf()->sgetc() returns traits::eof(), the function calls setstate(failbit | eofbit) (which may throw ios_base::failure).
So basically
So gcc-4.6 seems to behave correctly...
Ok, separate from the version analysis, which I'll leave for good measure, here is the answer:
I'll try to find source, but this thread discusses whether the documentation needs to be updated due to this change. It is therefore, a documented change :)
Edit Only found this: libstdc++/26211 (again) + N3168
From this page: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2011-04/msg00026.html
Hey, all.
I recently started using gcc-4.6.0 and it seems that the behaviour of std::istream::tellg() has changed when (just) the eofbit is set. I managed to track this down to PR/26211, and I'm not debating the changes.
It took me a while to figure out what was wrong because the doxygen for tellg() says:
If fail() is not false, returns pos_type(-1) to indicate failure. Otherwise returns rdbuf()->pubseekoff(0,cur,in).
That's almost word for word what Langer and Kreft says, so I'm presuming DR60's change to 27.6.1.3 paragraph 37 has lead to this change in libstdc++ behaviour.
Should the libstdc++ doxygen be updated to say something about the fact that calling
tellg()
wheneof()
will also returnpos_type(-1)
(because of the fact that it constructs a sentry)? Are there other functions that also should have updated documentation as a result of DR60?
I can confirm the difference. However, it is not a difference of the compiler, it is not a difference of the standard library headers, it is a difference of the linked shared library.
It doesn't depend on the gcc version. It doesn't depend on architecture:
t44: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.15, not stripped
t45: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.15, not stripped
t46: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.15, not stripped
The real difference seems to be
$ uname -a
Linux natty 2.6.38-8-generic #42-Ubuntu SMP Mon Apr 11 03:31:24 UTC 2011 i686 GNU/Linux
$ for a in t4?; do ./$a; done
1
4 4
4 4
1
4 4
4 4
1
4 4
4 4
Linux natty 2.6.38-8-generic #42-Ubuntu SMP Mon Apr 11 03:31:24 UTC 2011 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
sehe@natty:/mnt/jail/home/sehe$ for a in t4?; do ./$a; done
1
4 4
-1 4
1
4 4
-1 4
1
4 4
-1 4