RE: [OT] Comments on Dinkum C++ lib for GCC? ...

[Dietmar Kuehl <dietmar_kuehl at yahoo dot com>]

Hi,

--- Shiv Shankar Ramakrishnan <Shiv@pspl.co.in> wrote:
> |than libstdc++-v3! ... but then, libstdc++-v3 is, with respect to
> |conformance, the worst library I have tested in the last three month
> |(I have tested STLport, Dinkumware, CXXRT, and libstdc++-v3).
> 
> Hmmm ... thats interesting that STLport is more std compliant than
> libstdc++-v3?! I gather that you mean the whole std and not just the
> STL part?

I'm basically referring to the results of my testsuite which
concentrates on locales and IOStreams but also tests other stuff. The
biggest problem for libstdc++ are the C library functions not being
available in namespace 'std' if I remember correctly (it could have
been STLport where this problem was, too). However, I changed other
test cases to avoid failures due to C library functions not being in
namespace std.

> ... And this is really funny that out there Plauger pooh poohs
> the Rogue Wave implementation of the Std C++ library for Borland ...

I really dislike Plauger's implementation because it is not optimized
at all but it is fairly correct. I don't have the Rogue Wave, Modena,
or Metrowerks implementation (I think this would complete the list of
available implementations) to run them through my testsuite.

Regards,
  Dietmar

=====
<mailto:dietmar_kuehl@yahoo.com>
<http://www.dietmar-kuehl.de/>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/