Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 17:11:21 +0200 From: Arjan Knepper <arjan@jak.nl> To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: gcc 2.95.3 and STL Message-ID: <3AC35099.AE838DB@jak.nl> References: <3AC1A050.62BE0194@pop3.NL.net> <20010328010123.A40915@dragon.nuxi.com> <3AC1B2C1.8BE22BD1@theseventhson.freeserve.co.uk> <20010328121539.A83100@dragon.nuxi.com> <3AC24E25.9207EDF6@ludd.luth.se> <3AC31B36.CE395CF1@jak.nl> <3AC3235A.2522147D@theseventhson.freeserve.co.uk> <3AC3280C.565615B0@theseventhson.freeserve.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Benny Prijono wrote: > Benny Prijono wrote: > > > > As far as I notice (I only briefly browse the web version though), the > > difference between the printed and the online version is, the printed > > version has nice summary table of conformance level test results, > > oops... > second browse to the URL reveals that the results summary is also > there: > http://www.cuj.com/roundup/tables.htm Yes I have read the complete article online yesterday and did quickly browse through the zip files but no comparison between de various STL member fuction implementations. For example the checked access subscripting on a vector ( at() ) is not available in the GCC builtin STL but I cannot find that detail in the zip-reports. > additional info, Dinkumware has 2,000 individual tests against STL > implementations, Perennial has 74,619 combined tests, while Plum Hall > has 2256 tests. I assume the detail results are in those zip files in > the URL. Thanks, Arjan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3AC35099.AE838DB>