[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: SAX/C++: First interface draft

• From: Steinar Bang <sb@m...>
• To: xml-dev@i...
• Date: 06 Dec 1999 16:44:03 +0100

>>>>> John Aldridge <john.aldridge@i...>:

> We're using MSVC 6 here, and basic_string<> seems fine. 

It's not.  See eg.
	http://msdn.microsoft.com/visualc/stl/faq.htm#Q4

There are patches to this and other problems and bugs with the
Standard Library, to be found at
	http://www.dinkumware.com/vc_fixes.html
but these fixes won't help with templates that are explicitly
instantiated in the C++ runtime DLL.

I spent two weeks before last christmas trying to lose
Standards<ToolKit> when using MSVC++, and I got to the stage where I
was able to compile the program and run it a little bit before it
crashed, before we decided to cut our losses and went back to
Standards<ToolKit>.  This is a program that runs without incident on
Sunpro 4.2+Standards<ToolKit>, gcc/egsc on linux and MSVC++ with
Standards<ToolKit>.

Complaints about this state of the Standard C++ library, are met with
responses on the line of "MSVC++ is not a standard C++ compiler.  It's 
a Windows compiler".

Quite amazing, really.

However, MS has indicated that MSVC++ 7 will may come out with a fixed
version of the Standard C++ Library (but I'm not holding my breath
waiting for this).

> We use templates extensively (both the STL and our own), and they
> too give little trouble _except_ when it comes to exporting template
> instantiations across DLL boundaries, which takes considerable care
> (but can usually be managed).

It's OK if the instantiated classes don't have any static members.
Then you run into having to do this:
	http://msdn.microsoft.com/visualc/stl/faq.htm#Q5

> Namespaces are fine too.

Yes.  That wasn't my problem.  My problem was that std::iostreams are
incompatible with Standards<ToolKit> (a failing of Standards<ToolKit>, 
I agree).  I could make a stab at replacing Standards<ToolKit> with
stuff from SGI:
	http://www.stlport.org/doc/README.VC++.html

But then it's a question of replacing stuff that works with stuff that 
maybe works.
[snip!]

> I think the days of having to avoid large chunks of the C++ standard
> are largely over, thank heavens.

In half a year, to a year, I expect I'll agree with you.

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: SAX/C++: First interface draft
    • From: "Joshua E. Smith" <jesmith@k...>

• References:
  • Re: SAX/C++: First interface draft
    • From: John Aldridge <john.aldridge@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: simple XML for C++ application data-file I/O
• Next by Date: Re: SAX/C++ vs. SAX2
• Previous by thread: Re: SAX/C++: First interface draft
• Next by thread: Re: SAX/C++: First interface draft
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread