ANSI-C++ compliance?

[Alain Miniussi]

John Breen wrote:
> 
> 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...".
Commercial vendors port softwares on compiler that don't even support
static_cast.

> Is this true? 
That they do the comment ? yes :-)

> I've always thought of gcc as being on the bleeding edge.
> Are there really compliance problems that affect portability that
> severely?

None I am aware of, even compared to gcc 2.7, which is not as bad 
as DEC C++ 5.5, xlC 3.1.3, etc...
One of the less comliant commerial compiler I know (I in the latest 
version) is probably SunPro 4.2 (does not support bool, obsolete
templates etc..). So if they don't port on Linux, they don't port on 
Solaris, or do they ?

Alain



Alain