[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: gcc-3

** On Aug 23, Andrew Suffield scribbled:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 07:17:29PM +0530, Viral wrote:
> > If I am building a new package, which uses c++, is it a better idea to
> > use gcc 3 rather than the current one ?
> Not unless the upstream source requires g++ 3.0 (can't think of any
> reason why it should). Make sure it builds with both, but don't
If somebody codes in C++ and tries to follow the C++ Language 3rd edition
(lets say s/he is learning C++) then 2.95 will fail to compile all examples
which use std::ios_base::* - as ios_base is not found in the 2.95 stdc++.
std::ios::* can be used instead, of course, but that can be seen as
non-standard. Also, the iostreams library in 2.x is not completely standards
compliant. I was asking the same question to myself several times and,
generally, I think that 3.0 should be allowed and even encouraged for the
C++ packages (if the package compiles and works properly with the stricter
3.0 compiler, of course). Now, using stlport would be an option in case of
incompatibilities but, alas, stlport apps won't compile with 3.0 on
Debian... :(


Visit: http://caudium.net - the Caudium WebServer

/* A completely unrelated fortune */
 Political T.V. commercials prove one thing: some candidates can tell all 
 their good points and qualifications in just 30 seconds. 

Attachment: pgplg8DsKn5vE.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: