On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 06:32:20AM +1000, Danny Smith wrote: > --- Robert Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Danny Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > 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.
Another reservation was the observation in earlier gccs that using templates bloats the size of the executable/dll drastically. Is that still true? Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc.
