Boost logo

Boost :

From: William Kempf (sirwillard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-12-13 16:28:14

--- In boost_at_[hidden], rwgk_at_m... wrote:
> P.S.:
> >Downside: it might appear boost was blessing these broken
> implementations.
> Can someone name an implementation that is not broken according to
> standards implied in this sentence? My most frustrating experience
> a
> new-comer to C++ is that there does not seem to be such a thing at
> this
> time.
> The IRIX compiler is based on the EDG frontend. Doesn't this have a
> very good reputation? It seems a bit unfair to disqualify the IRIX
> compiler as a broken implementation only because the <cwhatever>
> are missing.

The EDG front end is used by the compiler to parse the C++ syntax,
which is totally unrelated to whether or not the compiler provided
libraries are conformant. The implementation in question here is the
implementation of the standard libraries, not of the compiler.

I'm not aware of any compiler that's fully compliant, though most are
now getting close enough for most uses. Only older compilers, and
the upcoming MS compiler, are so far behind in this regard that they
cause us major problems here.

Bill Kempf

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at