From: Martin Slater (mslater_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-19 17:01:37
> vc2003 was out 2 years ago, why did you use the already replaced version?
If you read what I said a bit more carefully you'll understand why not.
>> (doing nice things like overwriting the return address on the stack),
>> after a while we stopped fighting and stuck with vc6 til we got the
>> project out the door. We have now
>> upgraded to vc2003
> with it's replacement due for release in 3 months
And we'll look and evaluate 2005 when it comes, if it's looks good then
we'll move, any problems and we won't.
> Stability and wrong aren't that great a combination (though I'm sure
> your staff has learned not to try anything they read in the literature,
> or use the STL). Or have you gotten the upgrades directly from Dinkumware?
Stability is everything, lack of conformance we can code around easily
as the compiler tells us at build time, bad code generation we have to
wait until runtime to *maybe* find it in testing before release.
> yeah, it has _great_ code generation.... </sarcasm> if someone has
Cut the sarcasm please, you really are just plain rude at times and it
has a habit of clouding any valid points you may have. Its code
generation never caused the return address to be overwritten (vc2002) or
the vtable to be overwritten (vc2003).
> btw, I've been using 7.1 since it became available, and haven't bumped
> into any optimization problems, and we compile debug with none, and
> about everything we can find to turn on in release. Granted there are
> only 4 of us, but I don't recall any gotchas.
Which just show's what limited experience you have in these things and
why you should not try to tell others how to manage their products which
are probably in a completely different market to your own. We have a
great deal of code and at times had 15-16 developers working on it over
a four year period and we have found optmisation bugs in the last 2 vc
compilers and the current intel compiler and none in vc6, these are not
easy to create small repros for and with the update schedule of vc at
the moment are not going to fixed quickly. And when we are trying to
get a product ready for final release we are definitely not going to
change compilers if there are *any* problems in sight.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk