delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: cygwin-developers/2001/10/03/21:36:06

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: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 21:36:36 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: C++ templates and cygwin?
Message-ID: <20011003213636.C5900@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References: <04b201c14c73$12b6bb80$01000001 AT lifelesswks> <20011003212901 DOT B5900 AT redhat DOT com> <000201c14c74$92b705f0$01000001 AT lifelesswks>
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <000201c14c74$92b705f0$01000001@lifelesswks>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.21i

On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 11:32:10AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
>----- 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:
>>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?

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.

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?

cgf

- Raw text -


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