Please do not top post. On 01/03/2010 01:44 PM, Stefan Teleman wrote:
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 15:12, Rob Riggs<rob@pangalactic.org> wrote:
C++ on Solaris is a bit of a lost cause at the moment. The near-term route that we have decided to take is to abandon Sun Studio altogether and focus on porting to GCC on Solaris using the GCC package from Blastwave. I encourage others to consider doing the same.
[Lots of text elided for brevity.]
the post ... contains numerous factually wrong, incomplete, misleading and uninformed statements.
Stefan, I believe my post is quite well informed. And your reply seems to be intended to confuse the issue by discussing the state of affairs of OpenSolaris. My statements do not apply to Nevada. My statements apply to Solaris 10. This is the platform most Solaris developers target in production environments. You are using the same tactics that Sun sales staff use to pitch their operating system capabilities -- by pointing to features that exist only in a development version of the operating system and speak as if that were what people use on a daily basis. It is disingenuous at best. I notice you did not post this from your sun.com account. Do you still speak for Sun? Stefan, I have followed your work on PSARC/2008/549 and am very encouraged by the work you are doing. But it is also from the public discussions that leave many of us questioning the status of this work. The fact is this has not made it into Solaris proper yet and there has been no public indication that I can find as to when it will make it into Solaris. 12 years after c++98 and 7 years after c++03 was ratified and the only compiler shipped by Sun that supports these standards is GCC. What is going to happen with c++1x?
It is of great disservice to provide erroneous information, and that in response to a mailing list request for accurate information about a specific topic. Not only it confuses the original question, but it also diminishes the value of the mailing list.
There is nothing erroneous in my post. The purpose of my post was to aid fellow Solaris developers by providing some of my hard-won experience on this platform. I do not see anything that confuses the topic beyond what is admittedly a confusing state of affairs for C++ on Solaris. You are the one intentionally confusing the issue here.
- Sun does not have to wait until C++0x is ratified in order to provide libstdcxx, simply because libstdcxx does not yet support C++0x. There may exist, in the future, an implementation of the Apache Standard C++ Library, providing C++0x. It does not yet exist.
Sun's history with libCstd and with STLport implies that they would rather live with a non-standard C++ environment than break the ABI again. That this does not address c++1x is clealy pointed our in the PSARC opinion paper. I am unfamiliar with Sun's internal workings. But my understanding is that libstdcxx is going into the next Solaris version to provide c++03 compliance and that another version will need to be approved to support c++1x. That sucks for us C++ developers. It will be like libCstd and stlport4 all over again.
- GCCFSS has nothing to do with C++, or, for that matter, with C, or with std::locale. GCCFSS is simply a compiler backend optimizer for the SPARC ISA exclusively.
GCCFSS is relevant to this discussion as it is the only full-featured and standards-compliant C++ compiler that supports locales readily available on Solaris 10.
Thank you for your time.
--Stefan
Our decision to switch from Sun Studio to GCC was an economic one. The compiler that provides the most economic gain for us wins. In today's market, for software that impact our business, the value to us of open source software that compiles with GCC (and that does not compile with Sun Studio) dwarfs the value of commercially available software packages that require Sun Studio. That is true today and the economics are not likely to ever swing back in favor of Sun Studio. Regards, Rob