ANSI-C++ compliance?

[Per Bothner]

> 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