GCC-3 additions - related question

Danny Smith danny_r_smith_2001@yahoo.co.nz
Sun Oct 14 13:32:00 GMT 2001

 --- Robert Collins <robert.collins@itdomain.com.au> wrote: > 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Danny Smith" <danny_r_smith_2001@yahoo.co.nz>
> > Lately, I've been hearing this with STL code:
> > "This compile well using gcc!  Why it not MS!"
> > Thats what I want -- the first part of that anyway.
> Danny, it sounds like you might know the answer to this: are there known
> issues for building native code using the cygwin gcc with C++ templates?
> Specifically, I've asked Chris on the developer list about using
> templates for some stuff (iterators particularly are getting real old
> for me), see
> http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-developers/2001-10/msg00018.html
> for the thread.

I've built STLPort, Bench++ (Stepanov benchmarking suite) and some of the
Boost package with mingw 2.95.3 and gcc's ability to build template code is
not a problem compared with what I've read for other windows compilers. 
The issue is with efficiency.  Efficiency of writing generic code may be
enhanced by templates.  But...  Debugging template code is a real pain  --
stange errors with instantiatiation of templates have to be tracked through
a maze of headers.  And there is a runtime performance hit.  I don't have
the Bench++ results handy but there was a significant penalty for using
generic template code compared to C code.   I expect gcc-3.0 to be better,
at least as far as speed of compiled code. Speed of compilation, however,
is a problem when your testing.

I would agree with Corinna.

> Apparently Corinna had some reservations (Corinna - Are you still
> catching up on mail? :})...
> Rob

http://briefcase.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Briefcase
- Manage your files online.

More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list