Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , 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 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline 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" >To: >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