Re: New STL & egcs

[Ben Scherrey <scherrey at gte dot net>]

My present primary concern/desire is an ANSI C++ compliant compiler. If
the SGI string interface is the most compliant then I vote we go for it.
Any non-ANSI options should be supported optionally at best. The quicker
we get a compliant compiler/development system the quicker we get a
stable system that will break a lot less code. Anyone putting in the
effort to track egcs's progress is probably pretty up to speed on the
standard and prepared to deal with it. Right??? ;-)

Joe Buck wrote:
> The SGI STL v3.1 has code that conflicts with existing libstdc++ code
> in at least two places: the string class, and the exception classes.
> Both SGI and the existing libstdc++ provide versions.  The SGI string
> class is superior in that it conforms to the standard and our existing
> class does not.
> 
> To properly make these decisions we need to know more about the status
> of the replacement libstdc++.  Can Ulrich Drepper or Jason Merrill comment
> about the status?  When will a version be available for testing?  If you
> want to keep it private, should we use the SGI string class or not?
> 
> (I'm for dropping the existing string and using the SGI one).