Author: David Rasmussen
Date: 08:33:14 12/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 08, 2001 at 10:45:55, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >On December 08, 2001 at 06:03:14, David Rasmussen wrote: > >>On December 08, 2001 at 04:16:46, Lex Loep wrote: >> >>>Altough a bit off topic I still post it as many here use the MSVC compiler. >>>This bug makes me feel a bit uneasy as this is just a simple constuction >>>and makes you wander how many more of these faults are in there. >>> >>>Lex >>> >> >>There are no compilers without bugs. I have found a bunch in various versions of >>gcc myself. In fact, I have discovered fewer compiler bugs in MSVC than in gcc, >>but that may just be a coincidence. On the other hand, neither of those two >>compilers are very standard compliant, and that may be viewed as a bug in >>itself. The gcc 3.0.x branch is far more standard compliant than older gcc's, > >gcc looks very compliant if you use the proper switches. IIRC you have to use >the switch -pedantic. What do you mean exactly by "not very standar compliant"? >You refer to the extensions they have? > -pedantic only turns on certain warnings. -ansi turns on some errors and warnings for stuff that isn't ANSI/ISO compliant. But I'm afraid that's not enough to be standard compliant :) . I am not talking about extensions either. I am talking about things that gcc does that contradicts the standard (streambuf::in_avail() in gcc 3.0.x branch for example), and stuff that gcc doesn't do at all, although it is in the standard (loads of template code in all versions, stringstream missing in 2.95.x branch). gcc's ANSI/ISO C++ compliance is known not to be complete at all. So are most other compilers, except maybe for Comeau C++ and KAI C++, and others using the same frontend. The biggest problems are with templates. gcc has lousy template support (as does MSVC and Borland C++). But there are lots and lots of small and not so small things in gcc that are not compliant to the standard. Many programmers don't know this, as they themselves do not write compliant code. They write code that works on the compiler that they are most used to. To be fair, gcc 3.1 branch looks promising. 3.0.x had better compliance than 2.95.x, and 3.1 will have even more compliance. /David
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.