Re: [linux-audio-dev] [ot] [rant] gcc, you let me down one time too many

From: Chris Cannam <cannam@email-addr-hidden-day-breakfast.com>
Date: Thu Jun 09 2005 - 00:08:57 EEST

On Wednesday 08 Jun 2005 21:56, Jussi Laako wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 21:41 +0100, Chris Cannam wrote:
> > Are you sure this is still true in the gcc world, after they
> > changed vector from an array to a real class in gcc 3.3 or whenever
> > it was?
>
> Abovementioned template is not based on STL...

Oh, I'm sorry -- I was ploughing through this thread and just replying
to something with "vector" in it. I do apologise.

It certainly is possible to write extremely efficient classes in C++,
and in many cases they may be likely to be better than the code that
people would write in C (because you can encapsulate best practice in a
method that people would [often rightly] be averse to writing in the
context of C code). Of course the reverse is also true.

> About the STL; there are number of different implementations of
> std::vector<> in different C++ RTLs

Yes, indeed, but a couple of times here I've seen observations that a
vector would compile to an array if optimisation was on, etc. Since
we're mostly using gcc-3.3+ now, I wanted to ask if anyone is sure
whether that's really true.

Chris
Received on Thu Jun 9 04:15:17 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jun 09 2005 - 04:15:17 EEST