Thread View: gnu.g++.help
3 messages
3 total messages
Started by George W. Leach
Wed, 12 Aug 1992 12:07
(none)
Author: George W. Leach
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 12:07
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 12:07
24 lines
1157 bytes
1157 bytes
Hello! I've got a quick question. The latest GNU Bulletin (6/92) includes a description of G++, which indicates that AT&T's cfront is diverging from the ANSI efforts. This is presented as the reason why G++ and cfront are not in sync. Furthermore, there is an indication that G++ is tracking ANSI. The version of G++ listed is 1.40.3. The version of cfront spoken of is not listed (3.0?). I have access to neither AT&T's cfront or G++. I do have the ARM. Can someone elaborate on the point put forth in the GNU BUlletin? Thanks, George George W. Leach jc3b23!gwl@uunet.UU.NET St Petersburg Junior College Engineering Technology Dept. P.O. Box 13489 St. Petersburg, FL 33733-3489
Re: (none)
Author: Chris Flatters
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 16:45
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 16:45
33 lines
2295 bytes
2295 bytes
In article AA02010@jc3b23.UUCP, gwl@jc3b23.UUCP (George W. Leach) writes: > I've got a quick question. The latest GNU Bulletin (6/92) >includes a description of G++, which indicates that AT&T's cfront is >diverging from the ANSI efforts. This is presented as the reason why >G++ and cfront are not in sync. Furthermore, there is an indication >that G++ is tracking ANSI. The version of G++ listed is 1.40.3. The >version of cfront spoken of is not listed (3.0?). Diverging would be a incorrect statement. There are significant differences between the behaviour of cfront 2.1 and the ARM (apart from the fact the cfront 2.1 does not implement templates and exceptions). The most obvious difference is that nested classes definitions are given global scope in cfront 2.1. This and most other (if not all) discrepencies are fixed in cfront 3.0. USL are actually moving closer to conformance with the ANSI draft. GNU C++ should, however, be a little more nimble in tracking the draft standard than USL's cfront since releases of GNU C++ are rather more frequent than releases and don't have to percolate out through resellers (although cfront 3.0 was officially announced in October 1991 most resellers still appear to be at version 2.1). Given the length of time between USL releases it is unlikely that USL will attempt to track the ANSI draft standard in detail; they may stick with their interpretation of the ARM if there is any conflict with the ANSI interpretation until the ANSI draft stabilizes. Any differences that would result from this are likely to be minor (so far). In any case, it would be unwise to expect total source compatibility between different implementations of C++ until the ANSI standard gets the official stamp of approval. Chris Flatters cflatter@nrao.edu
g++, cfront, and the evolving ANSI C++ standard
Author: Ronald F. Guilmette
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 09:16
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 09:16
11 lines
1060 bytes
1060 bytes
In article <9208120807.AA02010@jc3b23.UUCP> gwl@jc3b23.UUCP (George W. Leach) writes: > I've got a quick question. The latest GNU Bulletin (6/92) >includes a description of G++, which indicates that AT&T's cfront is >diverging from the ANSI efforts. This is presented as the reason why >G++ and cfront are not in sync. Furthermore, there is an indication >that G++ is tracking ANSI. The version of G++ listed is 1.40.3. The >version of cfront spoken of is not listed (3.0?). This is all a substantial misstatement of the facts. The truth is that cfront is tracking the ANSI C++ efforts far better than the g++ compiler is at this time.
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads