On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 20:34 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, skaller wrote: > > | I should point out retaining 'old' features can create a > | significant maintenance burden for gcc developers, > > In this specific case, what are they?
You're in a better position than me to determine that. I don't know: it's a generalisation from experience with half a dozen compiler development projects I track. I could guess at things that might cause problems, for example changes in allocation strategy, thread safety, default allocators, etc which would be applied to all the standard containers, would also require work for the hash-ext containers, and, it may even create a conflict between remaining compatible with legacy code and simultaneously using conflicting new allocator technology. This may arise because, lacking standardisation, it is hard to say 'you shouldn't have been doing that it's undefined in the Standard' which you might say for the standard containers. Are the tr1 hash containers exactly the old ext containers? No? Then you just identified one such issue. -- John Skaller <skaller at users dot sf dot net> Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net
