ANSI-C++ compliance?

[Joe Buck]

> 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...".

I'm currently doing commercial code that goes through a number of
commercial compilers, as well as egcs, including compilers from Sun,
Microsoft, and HP.

egcs is closer to the ISO C++ standard than Sun's or Microsoft's current
offering.

> 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?

No.

However, breaking the API is an issue with some ... Red Hat says they
won't ship egcs-1.1 for that reason.