Bug 53011

Summary: Malfunction with seekp and ostringstream
Product: [Retired] Red Hat Linux Reporter: Randy Cushman <randy.cushman>
Component: libstdc++Assignee: Jakub Jelinek <jakub>
Status: CLOSED UPSTREAM QA Contact:
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 7.0   
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: i386   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2004-10-01 15:30:53 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Attachments:
Description Flags
sample source code
none
gcc-c++-sstream-seek.patch none

Description Randy Cushman 2001-09-01 18:47:38 UTC 
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/4.75 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16-22 i686)

Description of problem:
After using .seekp(0) on ostringstream object (attempting to reset the
object to start fresh creating a new string) text written to the object is
not written to the string.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Relates to libstdc++-2.96-69 (I think).


How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1.g++ sstream.cxx
2../a.out
3.
	

Actual Results:  >x<
>x<

Expected Results:  >x<
>pr00o.dat<

Additional info:
Comment 1 Randy Cushman 2001-09-01 18:52:20 UTC 
Created attachment 30554 [details]
sample source code
Comment 2 Jakub Jelinek 2001-09-03 10:50:15 UTC 
Created attachment 30678 [details]
gcc-c++-sstream-seek.patch
Comment 3 Jakub Jelinek 2001-09-03 10:53:39 UTC 
<sstream> is quite a new header in libstdc++ (added in April 2000, so e.g.
libstdc++ 2.95.x does not have it at all) and is incomplete.
As g++ 3.0 has a completely new implementation of this anyway, I'm just
attaching a quick hack which IMHO should work (you can apply the patch
in /usr/include/g++-3/ to test it out).
Comment 4 Jakub Jelinek 2001-09-06 16:04:54 UTC 
The fix is in 2.96-98.
Comment 5 Benjamin Kosnik 2004-10-01 15:30:53 UTC 
Fixed in gcc-3.2, gcc-3.3, gcc-3.4.