"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [...]
>> What about the extra size due to the common compiler feature, "no
>> empty base optimization in the presence of MI?" That was another
>> problem solved by using a chain of policy templates.
>> [...]
>
> True, but so far, it's only been an unsolvable problem on one compiler.
> Of course, if anyone wants to try out the code on something other than
> bcc 5.5, gcc 3.0, or vc 6.5, I would definitely like to see if it *is* a
> problem on other compilers.
It will be a problem on gcc-2.95.x. Also ALL versions of Metrowerks,
vc++, Intel for windows, and any other compiler that is trying to be
object-layout-compatible with VC on windows (which is most of them).
Also many other compilers on other platforms have this issue, because
it wasn't seen as a high-priority optimization in the early days and
vendors are very reluctant to break object code compatibility. It's
not every day you get to start over from scratch with a new ABI like
GCC did.
> And frankly, VC++ is beginning to annoy me greatly. There's a large
> number of small features that have to be worked around or outright
> sacrificed for it. I guess I'm curious to see if 7.1 has the same
> size problem, but I don't have access to that yet.
Of course it's object-code compatible, so object layout had to be
preserved.
--
David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
