Thumbs up or thumbs down: stl_config.h ?
Fri Feb 16 14:29:00 GMT 2001
Phil Edwards wrote:
> Okay, I'll hack on this while waiting for responses on other topics.
> > | eventually we want to remove the uncesessary code from the STL itself. I
> > | think Matt is doing this anyway, so I don't want to duplicate efforts.
> > Is there a chance to have V3 maintainers to have closer look at what
> > is going on on Matt's side?
> And, will SGI allow someone working at AT&T to continue to maintain SGI's
> implementation? We all know how wacky those research.att.com folks are. :-)
Probably not, any more than HP would allow people working at SGI to
maintain HP's implementation.
Yes, I should talk more closely to you people about just what I'm doing.
- I'm writing a new implementation of the standard C++ library, using
SGI's library as a code base. Many files have HP, SGI, and AT&T
- One difference between this and the SGI library is that I'm no
longer attempting to support obsolete compilers. That means that
almost all of the macros in stl_config.h are going away. I think
I do still need a config file for just one or two things, though---
for example, the presence or absence of long long.
- Another difference between this and the SGI library is that I'm
no longer attempting to keep allof the STL code in header files.
There are a lot of ".cxx" files, so many things are cleaner.
- Yet another difference is that I'm taking standard conformance
more seriously. Extensions will be in their own headers and in
their own namespace.
- Something I haven't yet done is go carefully over the I/O part
of the library and incorporate all of the performance enhancements
from the sfio library. (sfio is a replacement for stdio, written
by another AT&T person, Phuong Vo. There are some very clever
things in sfio.)
- Another thing I haven't yet done is redo the low-level locale
interface. The version I did for the SGI library was a reasonable
first attempt, but it's pretty clunky in some ways.
More information about the Libstdc++