Mail Archives: cygwin-developers/2001/10/03/21:31:50
----- 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
time
> >is kinda... well boring.
> >
> >Also abstracting the code up one level does allow future replacement
of
> >the list with b* trees/hash tables etc wit more ease. (And for some
of
> >the stuff in progress that _may_ become desireable.)
>
> I mentioned this to Corinna recently for the wincap stuff that she
just
> added and she was vehemently against it. Maybe you can get her
feeling
> 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
with
> 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?
Rob
- Raw text -