Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2001/10/14/16:32:35
--- Robert Collins <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au> wrote: >
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Danny Smith" <danny_r_smith_2001 AT yahoo DOT co DOT nz>
>
>
>
> > Lately, I've been hearing this with STL code:
> > "This compile well using gcc! Why it not MS!"
> > Thats what I want -- the first part of that anyway.
>
> Danny, it sounds like you might know the answer to this: are there known
> issues for building native code using the cygwin gcc with C++ templates?
>
> Specifically, I've asked Chris on the developer list about using
> templates for some stuff (iterators particularly are getting real old
> for me), see
> http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-developers/2001-10/msg00018.html
> for the thread.
I've built STLPort, Bench++ (Stepanov benchmarking suite) and some of the
Boost package with mingw 2.95.3 and gcc's ability to build template code is
not a problem compared with what I've read for other windows compilers.
The issue is with efficiency. Efficiency of writing generic code may be
enhanced by templates. But... Debugging template code is a real pain --
stange errors with instantiatiation of templates have to be tracked through
a maze of headers. And there is a runtime performance hit. I don't have
the Bench++ results handy but there was a significant penalty for using
generic template code compared to C code. I expect gcc-3.0 to be better,
at least as far as speed of compiled code. Speed of compilation, however,
is a problem when your testing.
I would agree with Corinna.
Danny
>
> Apparently Corinna had some reservations (Corinna - Are you still
> catching up on mail? :})...
>
> Rob
>
http://briefcase.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Briefcase
- Manage your files online.
- Raw text -