ANSI-C++ compliance?

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message < 19980914160027.25522.qmail@hotmail.com >you write:
  > There's an interesting article in the Sept. 1, 1998 issue of EDN 
  > magazine ("Linux revisited") regarding why commercial vendors don't port 
  > more software to Linux (actually, this article is readers' replies to a 
  > previous article).
  > 
  > One of the comments is that "GCC isn't ANSI-C++-compliant," so "to port 
  > would require a large amount of development time...".
  > 
  > 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?
Odd.  I've always thought of g++ as tracking ANSI-C++ closely.  There's
been holes in the implementation in the past (template, namespace and
other issues), but I've always thought G++ was as good as any other
in regards to compliance.

This may be a perception based on the state of the g++-2.7 releases
which were so popular and had such a long life due to the long
release cycle between gcc-2.7 and gcc-2.8 and egcs-1.0.


jeff