Rob Savoye wrote: > Mateusz Loskot wrote: >> Rob Savoye wrote: >>> Markus Gothe wrote: >>>> GCC is a gnuism with it's own non-iso extensions, not a real compiler >>>> for except x86-based systems imo. ;) > >> Honestly, I was hoping Rob will tell us the truth about it :-) > > Actually, since I avoid using the extensions,
Yes. > what's left is a nicely ANSI conforming C++ compiler, > especially if you use the newer 4.x version. Right. The only think that's missing for me is to get rid of problem described here (casting pointer-to-function to pointer-to-object, and vice versa): http://www.trilithium.com/johan/2004/12/problem-with-dlsym/ but this problem applies to C++ Standard than to particular compiler. But GCC could be nice and fix it even then :-) > I find this statement amusing, as for many years most people > thought it worked better on all the non x86 architectures. :-) The x86 > really only started to catch up with GCC 3.x. > > Personally, it's VC++ that I find obnoxious, as it doesn't even really > support the ANSI C++ spec. I found Visual C++ 2005 as well supporting ANSI C++. However, it's a crap because does not support C99. Here is my (mloskot) story and funny replies from MS :-) http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=259043&SiteID=1 Cheers -- Mateusz Loskot http://mateusz.loskot.net _______________________________________________ Gnash-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnash-dev
