This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
RE: [OT] Comments on Dinkum C++ lib for GCC? ...
- To: Shiv at pspl dot co dot in, libstdc++ at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- Subject: RE: [OT] Comments on Dinkum C++ lib for GCC? ...
- From: Dietmar Kuehl <dietmar_kuehl at yahoo dot com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 13:40:39 -0700 (PDT)
--- 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
> ... 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.
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.