From: Jens Maurer (Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-05-18 13:49:51
Paul Baxter wrote:
> Apologies if this is a tad offtopic, but I wondered what the current
> thoughts are on a 'compliant' C++ compiler for the PC.
If "PC" includes other operating systems than Windows on PC-style hardware,
your choice is larger.
> Comeau (+ STLPort?)
Works nice for me.
> GCC 2.9x/3.0 (will use this as a backup 2nd compiler anyway after its had a
> shakedown for a few months)
I would recommend against gcc 2.9x for standard compliance checking at this
time. gcc 3.0 should be much better in this regard.
> Whilst Boost may shy away from actually recommending a compiler, I think its
> time to start guiding people more towards the good implementations. Although
> the test results posted for Boost do help, they are coloured by a huge
> amount of workarounds for some compilers.
People interested in the amount of workaround for a particular compiler
should have a look at config.hpp and the number of #define's there. In
conjunction with the regression test results, this appears to be an
interesting measure of compliance.
In general, I've found the boost regression tests to exercise quite a lot
of aspects of a given compiler/library, often finding bugs in compilers or
Of course, you always start with an empty config.hpp for the compiler.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk