Re: [boost] [Boost 1.41: list_of] Boost compliation error, > Sun Studio 11 using standard C++ lib

Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost 1.41: list_of] Boost compliation error, > Sun Studio 11 using standard C++ lib
From: Rob Riggs (rob_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-01-03 20:12:43

Please do not top post.

On 01/03/2010 01:44 PM, Stefan Teleman wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 15:12, Rob Riggs<rob_at_[hidden]>  wrote:
>
>    
>> C++ on Solaris is a bit of a lost cause at the moment.  The near-term route
>> that we have decided to take is to abandon Sun Studio altogether and focus
>> on porting to GCC on Solaris using the GCC package from Blastwave.  I
>> encourage others to consider doing the same.
>>
>> [Lots of text elided for brevity.]
>>      
> the post ... contains
> numerous factually wrong, incomplete, misleading and uninformed
> statements.
>    
Stefan, I believe my post is quite well informed.  And your reply seems 
to be intended to confuse the issue by discussing the state of affairs 
of OpenSolaris.  My statements do not apply to Nevada.  My statements 
apply to Solaris 10.  This is the platform most Solaris developers 
target in production environments.

You are using the same tactics that Sun sales staff use to pitch their 
operating system capabilities -- by pointing to features that exist only 
in a development version of the operating system and speak as if that 
were what people use on a daily basis.  It is disingenuous at best.

I notice you did not post this from your sun.com account.  Do you still 
speak for Sun?

Stefan, I have followed your work on PSARC/2008/549 and am very 
encouraged by the work you are doing.  But it is also from the public 
discussions that leave many of us questioning the status of this work.  
The fact is this has not made it into Solaris proper yet and there has 
been no public indication that I can find as to when it will make it 
into Solaris.  12 years after c++98 and 7 years after c++03 was ratified 
and the only compiler shipped by Sun that supports these standards is 
GCC.  What is going to happen with c++1x?

> It is of great disservice to provide erroneous information, and that
> in response to a mailing list request for accurate information about a
> specific topic. Not only it confuses the original question, but it
> also diminishes the value of the mailing list.
>    
There is nothing erroneous in my post.  The purpose of my post was to 
aid fellow Solaris developers by providing some of my hard-won 
experience on this platform.  I do not see anything that confuses the 
topic beyond what is admittedly a confusing state of affairs for C++ on 
Solaris.  You are the one intentionally confusing the issue here.

> - Sun does not have to wait until C++0x is ratified in order to
> provide libstdcxx, simply because libstdcxx does not yet support
> C++0x.  There may exist, in the future, an implementation of the
> Apache Standard C++ Library, providing C++0x. It does not yet exist.
>    
Sun's history with libCstd and with STLport implies that they would 
rather live with a non-standard C++ environment than break the ABI 
again.  That this does not address c++1x is clealy pointed our in the 
PSARC opinion paper.  I am unfamiliar with Sun's internal workings.  But 
my understanding is that libstdcxx is going into the next Solaris 
version to provide c++03 compliance and that another version will need 
to be approved to support c++1x.  That sucks for us C++ developers.  It 
will be like libCstd and stlport4 all over again.

> - GCCFSS has nothing to do with C++, or, for that matter, with C, or
> with std::locale. GCCFSS is simply a compiler backend optimizer for
> the SPARC ISA exclusively.
>    

GCCFSS is relevant to this discussion as it is the only full-featured 
and standards-compliant C++ compiler that supports locales readily 
available on Solaris 10.
> Thank you for your time.
>
> --Stefan
>    

Our decision to switch from Sun Studio to GCC was an economic one.  The 
compiler that provides the most economic gain for us wins.  In today's 
market, for software that impact our business, the value to us of open 
source software that compiles with GCC (and that does not compile with 
Sun Studio) dwarfs the value of commercially available software packages 
that require Sun Studio.  That is true today and the economics are not 
likely to ever swing back in favor of Sun Studio.

Regards,

Rob