OT: Linux g++
greg at uni-corn.demon.co.uk
Thu Feb 12 11:16:47 New Zealand Daylight Time 1998
On Wed, 11 Feb 1998 s001gmu at nova.wright.edu wrote:
> what's wrong with linux g++, as far as templates go, btw?
> haven't had a need for a template class yet, but then I'm not very far
> into things. :)
Linux g++ fails miserably at implementing:
You can (sometimes) get away with basic uses of these features, but,
since we are all writing non-basic programs, that doesn't help too much.
I know that the exception handling is so poor that it has to be turned on
with a flag.
Additionally, I have heard that libg++ is not threadsafe (why I'm
avoiding use of threads), and only the more recent Linux kernels can cope
on multiprocessor systems. Libg++ itself has 'workarounds' (GNU's word
for it) for limitations within g++ - they have an extensive GNU-only
class library, and the method you have to use to instantiate containers
is confusing, at best.
I have heard that EGCS (www.cygnus.com/egcs) is much better than g++,
though I haven't had a chance to use it yet. Also, having (just now)
looked at the FSF web site, I have found that gcc is now on version 2.8; I
have 2.7.2. Does anyone know what/if improvements were made to the
compiler's handling of the 3 C++ features specified above? Let's hope my
comments don't still apply.
> > I'm free of Cobol now! Hurrah! >
> heh. I've never touched COBOL, and if I can help it, I never will. :)
It was mind-numbingly boring, and lost most of its challenge after about
9 months. Some companies are paying contractors 1000 pounds sterling, a
day, to make their legacy systems Y2K compliant (a possibly exagerated
Greg Munt, greg at uni-corn.demon.co.uk "I'm not bitter - just twisted."
More information about the MUD-Dev