Mail Archives: cygwin-developers/2001/10/03/21:31:50

Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-ID: <000201c14c74$92b705f0$01000001@lifelesswks>
From: "Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To: <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
References: <04b201c14c73$12b6bb80$01000001 AT lifelesswks> <20011003212901 DOT B5900 AT redhat DOT com>
Subject: Re: C++ templates and cygwin?
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 11:32:10 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 11:29 AM
Subject: Re: C++ templates and cygwin?

> On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 11:22:40AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
> >Chris,
> >    Whats your opinion on c++ template use within Cygwin. I'm not
> >necessarily talking the STL, just that for things like lists, derived
> >classes don't really suite, and recoding list traversal for the nth
> >is kinda... well boring.
> >
> >Also abstracting the code up one level does allow future replacement
> >the list with b* trees/hash tables etc wit more ease. (And for some
> >the stuff in progress that _may_ become desireable.)
> I mentioned this to Corinna recently for the wincap stuff that she
> added and she was vehemently against it.  Maybe you can get her
> on this when she comes back.

Will do.

> I have nothing against templates as long as they don't cause increases
> in code size or decreases in speed and I am not sure why they would.

I've heard that some compilers don't handle templates well at all - I'll
do a little digging into gcc 2.95.cygwin :].

> The only other problem I can think of is that there may be problems
> templates in older g++'s.

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?


- Raw text -

  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019