Re: [Ccrtp-devel] addDestination/delDestination bug

[David Sugar]

The real problem with stl (and templates in general) in Visual C++ is 
when you try to use them in dll's.  From what I have seen, Visual C++ 6 
template support is partially broken, and VC++7 perhaps even more so in 
regard to templates and dll's, although you can force it to work and 
build in a linkable dll if you are careful so long as you also 
explicitly define the methods for any virtuals physically in the dll 
sources that are linked in the case of VC++7, rather than shared in 
headers.  You must do the opposite for VC++6, if I recall correctly.

In regard to the quality and consistency of stl itself, some projects 
prefer to use "stlport" rather than the stl that might happen to come 
with a given compiler.  This does have the advantage of a stl of known 
quality and consistent implimentation.

I personally do not like templated code that much, because it tends to 
produce huge object images which you can get stuck with if you have a 
poor linker unable to resolve the common expressions at link time.  gcc 
incidently includes a couple of special pragma's which allow you to 
specify when a template is being used for declaration purposes only vs 
when to impliment code from a given class into a given object file. 
This can be very nice when used correctly, but is entirely gcc specific.

The template classes we looked at having in Common C++ were going to be 
for special cases where common but highly optimized design patterns 
would likely get re-used.  For example, if one needs a single linked 
list or associated hash as a single list, or other specialized things 
that did not fit into stl well, or which the stl version that comes 
close would tend to be much larger.  It was also going to be extended to 
better support multi-threading which most stl's do not address, and 
perhaps eventually support "lock-free" data structures.  The most useful 
class in the Common C++ template library at the moment seems to be the 
smart pointer class.

Federico Montesino Pouzols wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 07:28:00PM -0500, Dan Weber wrote:
>
> > How much slower would it be using std::list.  We know std::list is very 
> > well tested and usable.  I'm thinking about sending a patch just because 
> > I'm not interested in instability in my applications.
> >
> > Dan
>
>
> I've had funny experiencies with the STL of Visual C++, though they
> may have improved in the last two years. Apart from atrocious
> implementations, the performace loss should not be too big not even
> noticeable, but it depends on what list we consider (list of packets,
> ssrcs, participants, destinations, etc. may show significant
> differences in size and use frequency depending on the application). I
> think the best solution would be to replace handcrafted lists with
> templates similar to the objlink template of commonc++, without the
> overhead derived from additional functionality or deficient STLs.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ccrtp-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/ccrtp-devel

dyfet.vcf
Description: Vcard