delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf AT redhat DOT com> > >do you mean the STL, or handling of templates? I'd have thought that > >older g++'s were irrelevant as cygwin is built with a patched gcc > >anyway - can that not be set as a minimum requirement? > > Both, actually. I thought that there were problems with templates in > general and STL in particular. Or maybe incompatibilities is a better > way of describing the problem. I'm not sure. I don't think gcc had a full STL until quite recently - but as I've never used the STL I'm guessing :]. > Now, I'm wondering if there were code size issues too. Is it possible > that using STL will pull in lots of extra unneeded cruft? The STL is not an issue for me - it's the template capability. I'm more than happy to roll a new iterator without the STL - if the STL is the issue. I don't believe that using the STL per se generates cruft though - it's quite highly optimised code in there. Rob
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |