From: Firingme (firingme_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-10 03:30:52
>From your reply, I can infer that you must have some painful experience with
I'm a newbie with both C++ and English, so thanks a lot that you teach me so
;-)I'll try to use VC7.1 as possible as I can,hope that will not be a
"Joel de Guzman" <joel_at_[hidden]>
> Firingme <firingme_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > "Joel de Guzman" <joel_at_[hidden]>
> > ??????:00b301c38eeb$2f16fbc0$64646464_at_godzilla...
> >> Does that prove that VC7.1 is worse? It's trully sad that people jump
> >> to the conclusion that a compiler is better by virtue of it being able
> >> compile this or that library without considering how much gunk was
> >> to workaround various compiler quirks to make them happy.
> > The Problem is not VC7.0 "being able to compile this or that library
> > without
> > considering how much gunk was written".
> > C1001 Error is
> > ---------Compiler Internal Error---------
> > that says if you receive a C1001 error, you can't do anything to work
> > it,
> Oh yes you can! Library writers workaround ICEs everytime! It's just
> tedious and a royal pain in the rear.
> > and I also
> > think that it express that the Compiler is not stablity enough !
> Are you saying that VC7 is more stable than VC7.1? Wow, that's new!
> Try to count the number of workarounds for VC6, VC7 and VC7.1
> in a modern library such as, say, MPL, and you'll be surprised.
> > As far as I know, there have been many people have send there complain
> > with this *fatal* BUG !
> VC6 and VC7 ICEs like crazy! Luckily, for you, library writers spend
> hours finding workarounds to these nasty ICEs.
> Joel de Guzman
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk