This actually answers the question... took a while but I wanted to do it for the same reasons (efficiency vs portability is fine for my situation):
class mybuf : public std::stringbuf {
public:
// expose the terribly named end/begin pointers
char *eback() {
return std::streambuf::eback();
}
char *pptr() {
return std::streambuf::pptr();
}
};
class myos : public std::ostringstream {
mybuf d_buf;
public:
myos() {
// replace buffer
std::basic_ostream<char>::rdbuf(&d_buf);
}
char *ptr();
};
char *myos::ptr() {
// assert contiguous
assert ( tellp() == (d_buf.pptr()-d_buf.eback()) );
return d_buf.eback();
}
int main() {
myos os;
os << "hello";
std::cout << "size: " << os.tellp() << std::endl;
std::string dat(os.ptr(),os.tellp());
std::cout << "data: " << dat << std::endl;
}
This points to, yet again, the deeper, underlying problem with the standard library - a confusion between contracts and "safety". When writing a messaging service, I need a library with efficient contracts... not safety. Other times, when writing a UI, I want strong safety - and cares less about efficiency.