This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: ANSI-C++ compliance?
- To: "John Breen" <jab3 at hotmail dot com>
- Subject: Re: ANSI-C++ compliance?
- From: Per Bothner <bothner at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 11:02:10 -0700
- cc: egcs at cygnus dot com
> One of the comments is that "GCC isn't ANSI-C++-compliant," so "to port
> would require a large amount of development time...".
No compiler is ANSI-C++-compliant, so this is BS. Some compilers
are closer than others.
> Is this true? I've always thought of gcc as being on the bleeding edge.
> Are there really compliance problems that affect portability that
> severely?
If people are talking about the C++ compiler in gcc 2.7 (which was the
official version for a very long time), then it is pretty bad, sionce 2.7
is from 1995. If they are talking about gcc2 2.8, it is better,
but no-body is maintaining it, so that is almost a year old.
What they *should* be comparing is egcs 1.0 (or better 1.1), which
has very good C++-standard-compliance. (The libraries are being
worked on, but the compiler itself is closer than most.) Using any
other version of g++ is a result of mis-information.
--Per Bothner
Cygnus Solutions bothner@cygnus.com http://www.cygnus.com/~bothner