Paul Pluzhnikov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > You apparently do not yet comprehend amount of work that is sometimes > required maintaining large bodies of code with numerous external > dependencies, especially if said code must integrate with other > products, some of which may only be available in binary form.
You have almost exectly described my work as a programmer in the last 36 years (I have started in 1969) -- apart from the fact that I don't have to depend from "other products, some of which may only be available in binary form". My work is feasible because, e.g. at FNAL, we use strict ANSI Standard C++. In the dark days of egcs and g++ 2.95, this meant not to use gcc at all; we were linked to Kuck & Associates, Inc. (KAI) KCC. After the first release of gcc 3, we started to investigate the compatibility of our code with that compiler; most of the incompatibilites were due to bad code. And, for the others, we had to cooperate strictly with the gcc developement team; after that these issues (the most of them regarding templates) have been solved, we switched back from KCC to g++. Nowadays nobody of us fears a new version of the compiler. Not only; from what we see testing the snapshots of g++ version 4, we WOULD LIKE to have the new compiler soon available in a stable version. I don't mind what other people think about me; I said that the best solution for the OP is to upgrade to an up-to-date g++. If his code is not Standard, or if he depends from non-Standard code distributed in a binary form, well, he has done a very bad choice and he in on its own. -- Maurizio Loreti http://www.pd.infn.it/~loreti/mlo.html Dept. of Physics, Univ. of Padova, Italy ROT13: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Help-gplusplus mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gplusplus
