On May 8, 10:10 pm, Ian Collins <ian-n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> mlimber wrote:
> > On May 7, 5:41 pm, Ian Collins <ian-n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> mlimber wrote:
> >>> I'm considering different platforms and compilers for a project.
> >>> Anyone have experience (positive or negative) with HP aC++ on HP-UX?
> >>> It seems fairly standard compliant since it sup****ts Boost 1.34, but
> >>> I'd like to hear from you all. Same question for Sun Studio's C++
> >>> compiler on Solaris.
> >> It looks like you are putting the card before the horse. If both
> >> platforms have both gcc and mutually exclusive native compilers,
surely=
> >> the choice is one of which platform rather than which compiler?
> > As I see it, the questions are interrelated. We must
> > evaluate the quality of development tools as an integral
> > part of the platform as a whole and use that information to
> > help determine which platform is most suitable.
> > Moreover, we have some existing gcc code that may be ****ted
> > over, and while I don't mind changing code to make it more
> > standard compliant, I'd like to avoid making it less
> > compliant (and thus less ****table) just to work around a
> > native compiler's idiosyncrasies.
> Well I can only comment on the Solaris tools, CC and gcc. If
> you strive for standards compliance, build your code with
> both. The tools supplied with Sun Studio are a step ahead of
> the GNU tools and the compiler tends to generate faster
> executables. The OS provides a host of performance tuning
> tools.
I've not experience with anything later than SunStudio 11, but
with that, while the compiler is fairly good (although not quite
as good as g++), both of the libraries available with it are, to
put it mildly, junk, with any number of serious errors which
need work arounds.
> If you want maximum ****tability, check with more than one
> compiler.
Or use the same compiler everywhere:-). The simplest way to
achieve ****tability is just to standardize on g++. As far as I
can tell (and I've a fair amount of experience in the question),
this has no real disadvantages for Unix platforms: the native
compilers will typically optimize a bit better, but most
applications don't need that extra performance. As for the
tools, vim or emacs and GNU make are the same for both as well
(and GNU make ensures a more or less ****table build environment
as well---writing ****table makefiles is more difficult than
writing ****table C++).
--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:james.kanze@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
en informatique orient=E9e objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place S=E9mard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'=C9cole, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34
|
