Boost logo

Boost :

From: William Kempf (sirwillard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-12-18 18:06:51

--- In boost_at_[hidden], "Ed Brey" <brey_at_a...> wrote:
> From: "William Kempf" <sirwillard_at_m...>
> > Firstly, VC6 was released before the standard was ratified (it's
> > old).
> Hmmm. I remember buying Visual Studio 6 as soon as it was released
> sale (becuase I wanted to the new ATL OLEDB stuff), and as I recall
> was in September of 1998. My copy of the standard shows ANSI
> on July 27, 1998. Granted, I am going off of memory, here, so if
you have
> some explicit knowledge, I won't question it.

Semantics. It was "released" in the sense that it was finalized and
sent to production before the standard was ratified. This isn't the
same as "released" in the sense that you could purchase it and have a
copy in your hands before then.

> > Again, Dinkumware supplied an STL implementation, not a full C++
> > standards implementation. It was not the place of the Dinkumware
> > library to define the legacy C functions/types within the std
> > namespace. This one is a failing of MS's, and I'll join you in
> > criticizing them here, though at the time few other compilers had
> > done this level of conformance either.
> All the standard C++ library files, including cstdlib that ships
with VC,
> are copywrited by P.J. Plauger. That sure makes it look like
> et. al. were in Dinkumware's court.

Sort of. The <c*> files are very thin wrappers around the MS
supplied C headers. I don't know why Dinkumware went to this level
while not going all the way, though "going all the way" can lead to
numerous issues for end users considering how the standard C headers
are implemented.
> > [Several arguments about how Microsoft's hands were largely tied
> legality and avoiding large changes in service packs.]
> Your points are very good. I'm sure we all (MS library users) wish
> somehow MS could have found a way to make available a more standard
> library when VC was released or soon thereafter. Alas, 'twas not
> case, and so the VC library is what it is for purposes of
comparison to
> alternatives.

Which I don't have a complaint about. Now when VC7 hits the streets
we'll talk again ;).
> > P.S. You've not pointed out where Boost has needed work arounds
> > because of the Dinkumware STL shipped with VC++.
> This is predicated on my understanding that files like cstdlib are
part of
> the Dinkumware library, as indicated above. What part is Dinkumware
> really doesn't matter though. What matters is that boost has to
> around the out-of-the-box VC library, even with out-of-the-box
meaning VC6
> + SP4 + vc_fixes.

Then we choose to lay the blame on different shoulders. These
particular work arounds are caused by MS, not Dinkumware, IMHO.
> > P.P.S. The "list insert" bug you posted is, frankly, a bug on
> > part. The vector is empty, so nothing will occur. The code you
> > supplied thus compiles and runs correctly. Fixing this error, so
> > that something will truly be inserted, also compiles and runs
with no
> > error on VC++ (I'm using VC6 SP4, though this is unlikely to make
> > difference as the STL is the same as that shipped with VC5).
> The code intentionally does nothing useful. It is just a minimal
> to show the bug. For me it doesn't compile under the VC6 library,
but it
> does under STLport. Following is the entire snippet:
> #include <vector>
> #include <list>
> int main() {
> std::vector<char> v;
> std::list<int> l;
> l.insert(l.end(), v.begin(), v.end());
> return 0;
> }
> The specific error I get is:
> error C2664: 'void __thiscall std::list<int,class
> >::insert(class std::list<int,class std::allocator<int>
> >::iterator,unsigned int,const int &)' : cannot convert parameter 2
> 'char *' to 'unsigned
> int'

Ahhh... I missed the different contained types.
> The cause of the problem doesn't surprise me: member templates
should have
> been used but were not, probably because they were not available in
> earlier version of VC. What surprises me is that this hasn't been
> in a SP.

VC5 didn't support member templates. This behavior is documented in
the online help as a work around, not as a bug (look at list::insert
in the online help). So we're back to the legal/business reasons why
this "bug" exists. This is one that you can expect to be fixed with
the release of VC7.

Bill Kempf

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