|
 |
Thorsten Froehlich wrote in message <3aaced70$1@news.povray.org>...
>Yes, "more exotic", but what is "more exotic" for which compiler? And,
>how can a good library work around compilers such as gcc 2.72 (of
>course, never versions work better) that claim in a warning (shown
>whenever used) that templates are broken?!? Obviously it has to be
>doing some "dirty tricks". Now, how can one be sure the code of such a
>library is of really high quality?
Where did you manage to get gcc 2.72 ? Next to a T.Rex skeleton in a
paleonthology museum? I have nothing but 2.95.x on my Linux CDs (got in the
last 12 months). If you want to hurt yourself, you can even get 2.96 from
RedHat 7! In my experience, 2.95.2 if MUCH better than MSVC6 SP3 w.r.t.
language conformance (not in optimization, sadly there MS still rules).
Alessandro Coppo
a.c### [at] iol it
Post a reply to this message
|
|
