Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Message-ID: <20011015202600.98951.qmail@web14506.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 06:26:00 +1000 (EST) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Danny=20Smith?= Subject: Re: GCC-3 additions - related question To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com In-Reply-To: <20011015112121.J1696@cygbert.vinschen.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > Another reservation was the observation in earlier gccs that using > templates bloats the size of the executable/dll drastically. Is that > still true? > > Corinna > If you talking about bringing in STL and templated iostreams, yes. If you are talling about simple template classes that get used over and over, the size overhead is not a big problem. Also, when building libs as dlls, this forces closure of template classes so that duplicate instances are merged. The only way to find out is to try it. (Yeah, right, I'll whip that up right away, boss) I haven't tested 3.x with templates that much. Danny Danny http://briefcase.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Briefcase - Manage your files online.