Re: [Cpptool-develop] ToDo list

[Baptiste L. <gai...@fr...>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sven Reichard" <rei...@ma...>
To: "CppTool Mailing List" <Cpp...@li...>
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 3:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Cpptool-develop] ToDo list


> On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Baptiste Lepilleur wrote:
> > Also, notes that some gcc 2.95 issues should solves themselves over
time.
> > >From what I remember, somebody is working on Boost.Format with gcc
2.95. On
> > the other hand, you may want to contact Beman Dawes concerning
> > Boost.Filesystem issues. Another things that would be interesting to
know if
> > is the STLPort + gcc 2.95 combination works.
>
> I realized that I have access to either
> - gcc 2.96 under Linux
> - gcc 2.95 under SunOS.
>
> STLPort doesn't compile under any of these (out of the box). For 2.96,
> they don't claim they support it (it's not a very good compiler, but sort
> of standard for recent Linux distributions).

Do you mean that gcc 2.96 is worth than gcc 2.95 ?

> For gcc 2.95 under SunOS, it obviously hasn't crossed their minds that
> somebody would want to do something like that. Basically, their
> configuration header file contains something like
>
> # ifdef __GCC__
> #  define some variables a certain way
> # endif
>
> # ifdef __SunOS__
> #  define them another way
> # endif
>
> So, if both are defined, this doesn't compile.

Quite strange, STLPort is renowned for its portability. And using gcc on
other platform than linux is fairly common. Well, if anything, it would mean
that the STLPort solution will not be simple if anything.

> I'll keep working on it.

Thanks. Though, don't lose too much time on this. I expect the boost issues
to solve themselves over time.

Baptiste.

>
> SVen.
>
> --
> Sven Reichard
> Dept. of Math. Sci.
> University of Delaware
> rei...@ma...