Re: Survey of Libraries and Visual C++

From: dwolfram_at_[hidden]
Date: 2001-01-22 21:31:46

Hi Jeremy,

Thank you for your detailed reply. We are very interested to hear the 
first-hand views of library developers.

You may be interested to know that the following conformance-related 
issues have been resolved for Visual C++.NET:

Q240862 BUG: C2555 On Virtual Functions with Covariant Return Types
Q240871 BUG: Explicitly Specified Template Functions Not Overloaded 
Correctly
Q241569 BUG: C2258 and C2252 on in Place Initialization of Static 
Const Members
Q241706 BUG: C2123 on Function Try Block Syntax
Q241940 BUG: C2954 on using class template as template parameter
Q242192 BUG: uncaught_exception() Always Returns False
Q243444 BUG: CSTDLIB Does Not Define the Namespace STD
Q167733 PRB: Operator New Doesn't Throw bad_alloc Exception on Failure
For loop variable scope.

I shall ensure that your comments are discussed by the team.

David Wolfram
Visual C++ Compiler Team 

--- In boost_at_[hidden], Jeremy Siek <jsiek_at_l...> wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> Thank you very much for doing this survey! I really hope that you 
take
> action based on the responses.
> 
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 dwolfram_at_m... wrote:
> dwolfr> 1. Which third-party libraries do you use?
> 
> I use Blitz++, the Matrix Template Library (MTL), the boost 
libraries
> (especially the graph library), and STLport.
> 
> dwolfr> 2. If you cannot use Visual C++ with these libraries, what 
are the 
> dwolfr> causes of this?  For example, does the library require 
partial 
> dwolfr> template specialization support? Do other issues also 
prevent you 
> dwolfr> from using the library with Visual C++?
> 
> Blitz++ uses partial specialization. The Boost Graph Library and 
also MTL
> have lots of #ifdef workarounds for VC++ because of the lack of 
partial
> spec. Also, the next version of MTL (BTW, I'm the author) will 
includes
> lots of wonderful new features, but they all require partial spec.
> 
> dwolfr> 3. If you are a library developer, what workarounds or 
design 
> dwolfr> constraints were required for compatibility with Visual 
C++? What 
> dwolfr> were the most significant ones? Did the workarounds or 
constraints 
> dwolfr> have performance impacts?
> 
> The partial specialization is the number one issue. However, there 
are
> others. Standard library conformance is also VERY important, 
especially
> things like iterator_traits.
> 
> Also, for performance, the lightweight object optimization done by
> the KAI C++ compiler greatly improves performance for modern C++
> template libraries. I would like to see VC++ use this optimization
> (or use some equivalent optimization).
> 
> In addition, I've run into lots of random internal compiler errors 
when
> using/creating template-heavy libraries. I'm afraid these errors 
are very
> difficult to characterize.
> 
> I probably spend on average 5 hours every week doing workarounds
> for VC++ bugs. My productivity would be greatly enhanced if this
> were no longer the case.
> 
> dwolfr> 4. Are you mainly a "consumer" or "producer" of  library 
templates?
> 
> Mainly a producer, though often times the libraries I produce are
> "in the middle", and use other libraries.
> 
> dwolfr> I hope to hear from you, and shall summarize the replies if 
they are
> dwolfr> numerous.
> 
> Great, thanks!
> 
> Jeremy
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
--
>  Jeremy Siek                        www: 
http://www.lsc.nd.edu/~jsiek/
>  Ph.D. Candidate                  email: jsiek_at_l...
>  Univ. of Notre Dame         work phone: [phone]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
--