Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
>>>>> John Aldridge <john.aldridge@i...>: > We're using MSVC 6 here, and basic_string<> seems fine. It's not. See eg. http://msdn.microsoft.com/visualc/stl/faq.htm#Q4 There are patches to this and other problems and bugs with the Standard Library, to be found at http://www.dinkumware.com/vc_fixes.html but these fixes won't help with templates that are explicitly instantiated in the C++ runtime DLL. I spent two weeks before last christmas trying to lose Standards<ToolKit> when using MSVC++, and I got to the stage where I was able to compile the program and run it a little bit before it crashed, before we decided to cut our losses and went back to Standards<ToolKit>. This is a program that runs without incident on Sunpro 4.2+Standards<ToolKit>, gcc/egsc on linux and MSVC++ with Standards<ToolKit>. Complaints about this state of the Standard C++ library, are met with responses on the line of "MSVC++ is not a standard C++ compiler. It's a Windows compiler". Quite amazing, really. However, MS has indicated that MSVC++ 7 will may come out with a fixed version of the Standard C++ Library (but I'm not holding my breath waiting for this). > We use templates extensively (both the STL and our own), and they > too give little trouble _except_ when it comes to exporting template > instantiations across DLL boundaries, which takes considerable care > (but can usually be managed). It's OK if the instantiated classes don't have any static members. Then you run into having to do this: http://msdn.microsoft.com/visualc/stl/faq.htm#Q5 > Namespaces are fine too. Yes. That wasn't my problem. My problem was that std::iostreams are incompatible with Standards<ToolKit> (a failing of Standards<ToolKit>, I agree). I could make a stab at replacing Standards<ToolKit> with stuff from SGI: http://www.stlport.org/doc/README.VC++.html But then it's a question of replacing stuff that works with stuff that maybe works. [snip!] > I think the days of having to avoid large chunks of the C++ standard > are largely over, thank heavens. In half a year, to a year, I expect I'll agree with you. xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1 To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; unsubscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
