Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 13:27:35 12/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 08, 2001 at 11:33:14, David Rasmussen wrote: >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. Ok, I thought you were talking about ANSI C and not C++ Miguel > >/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.