You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com> on 2005/06/01 22:30:54 UTC
Re: Proposal for STDCXX
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Heidi Buelow wrote:
>
> Proposal for an Apache-run version of the C++ Standard Library
>
> Submission date: 12 May 2005, Tim Triemstra, Heidi Buelow (TimT @ RogueWave
> dot-com, Buelow @ RogueWave dot-com)
>
> (0) rationale
>
> The goal of the Apache C++ Standard Library project is to provide a free
> implementation of the ISO/EIC 14882 international standard, often called the
> "STL" or "stdlib", which is consistent and portable across all major
> platforms and compilers. For the sake of this proposal, the project will be
> called "STDCXX" to blend in with other Apache names.
>
> Currently, C++ developers spend considerable effort porting code among
> platforms, as compiler vendors are focused on backward compatibility rather
> than cross-platform portability. There are other free implementations, but
> none have the quality, license flexibility, or platform support necessary to
> serve as a universal foundation for the C++ language.
Not to rain on anyone's parade, or to cast doubts in any direction, but
I'm curious about motivations.
In short, the proposal spells out 'what' -- but I'm curious about 'why.'
There's at least one open implementation out there now: the GNU STL.
What differentiates the RW codebase from the GNU one? If there are
bugs or performance, uh, deficiencies in the GNU one, why not submit
the changes to the gcc crowd?
And on the other side, what's the 'why' for the people who have expressed
+1 on this proposal? I mean no criticism; I'm just curious why they
think it would be good to have another open C++ library, and have it
at Apache.
Particularly in light of http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2005-05/msg00134.html
and its complete thread.
I'm not against this at all; in fact, I'm rather in favour of providing
open alternatives for just about anything. But I'd still like to know
why this came out, why it came here, and why some other people here like it.
:-)
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBQp4a/ZrNPMCpn3XdAQGPGgQAhdFy9PAUFo9haPp9qdAuYPC9ZWGi3EdQ
inBhfK2NWKRN9C8AmNL+sUSXJ6zgtzjIYFxBOgE3Ti9CHwvZxI6OkMRnNDOtOqj1
3CwqmCt43D/gBgRJHwATjHG1KHuzFQXJeHTpJ3AXgXH0HwyAxItPaPT8aNrpiTmm
7hjPT540PuM=
=mNBi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Proposal for STDCXX
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
At 10:10 PM 6/1/2005, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 09:55:01PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> I'm willing to serve as either mentor or ppmc member, as you will.
>> +1 to STDCXX -entering- incubation.
>
>Glad to hear it. You can help me and Ben help them. =)
>
>It's been pointed out that mentors should be on the Incubator PMC. So, if
>you want to do this, we need to go through the process of adding you to the
>PMC. (If this is an issue, please let me know; otherwise, I'll start that
>process in the next day or so.)
Feel free. I've gone through this grind once on the other end :)
>> One point, is STDCXX a Mark of Rouge Waves', or is it your newly
>> invented name? We avoid adopting other marks (we have, but with
>> lots of extra, ugly paperwork.) Before the project is chartered
>> I'd like to see it incubated under its future name.
>
>AFAIK, this was a new working name that Rogue Wave came up with just for the
>purposes of Incubation. I believe that once incubation is started, there will
>be a discussion about picking a more permanent name. However, that discussion
>is best held off until all the mailing lists are set up. -- justin
Coolness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Proposal for STDCXX
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 09:55:01PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> I'm willing to serve as either mentor or ppmc member, as you will.
> +1 to STDCXX -entering- incubation.
Glad to hear it. You can help me and Ben help them. =)
It's been pointed out that mentors should be on the Incubator PMC. So, if
you want to do this, we need to go through the process of adding you to the
PMC. (If this is an issue, please let me know; otherwise, I'll start that
process in the next day or so.)
> One point, is STDCXX a Mark of Rouge Waves', or is it your newly
> invented name? We avoid adopting other marks (we have, but with
> lots of extra, ugly paperwork.) Before the project is chartered
> I'd like to see it incubated under its future name.
AFAIK, this was a new working name that Rogue Wave came up with just for the
purposes of Incubation. I believe that once incubation is started, there will
be a discussion about picking a more permanent name. However, that discussion
is best held off until all the mailing lists are set up. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Proposal for STDCXX
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
At 06:45 PM 6/1/2005, Martin Sebor wrote:
>William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>
>>Can you give us a sense of the 'currently' supported platforms
>>and compilers?
>
>The C++ Standard Library project has been ported to the following
>compilers and operating systems:[...]
That said, I'm suitably impressed with how thorough the incoming
code is and how well it's been considered.
Obviously endianess, wordsize, alignment and thousands of other
little nits hamper such efforts. Kudos on your persistance.
I'm willing to serve as either mentor or ppmc member, as you will.
+1 to STDCXX -entering- incubation.
One point, is STDCXX a Mark of Rouge Waves', or is it your newly
invented name? We avoid adopting other marks (we have, but with
lots of extra, ugly paperwork.) Before the project is chartered
I'd like to see it incubated under its future name.
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Proposal for STDCXX
Posted by Martin Sebor <se...@roguewave.com>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> At 03:43 PM 6/1/2005, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
>
>>GNU libstdc++ is a fine implementation of the standard but its
>>big limitation is its dependency on gcc. What differentiates
>>our implementation is its portability to all the other compilers
>>besides gcc, which on most platforms other than Linux is still
>>an inferior choice when compared to the native compiler.
>
>
> Can you give us a sense of the 'currently' supported platforms
> and compilers? (Obviously, with this mission, the breadth of
> these would grow with time as an ASF project.)
The C++ Standard Library project has been ported to the following
compilers and operating systems:
Como 4.2.4 through 4.3.3 on Solaris 7 through 9 (SPARC)
Compaq C++ 6.3 through 6.5 on Tru64 UNIX (Alpha)
EDG eccp 2.45.2 through 3.5 on Solaris 7 through 9 (SPARC) and
Linux (x86)
gcc 2.95.2 through 3.4.3 on HP-UX, Linux (x86, x86_64, IA64),
Solaris 7 through 10 (x86, SPARC), as well as Cygwin and Interix
HP aCC 3.33 through 3.63 on HP-UX 11.00 through 11.23 (PA-RISC)
HP aCC 5.50 through 6.01 on HP-UX 11.22 through 11.23 (IPF)
IBM VisualAge C++ 5.0 through 7.0 on AIX and Linux (PowerPC)
Intel C++ 7.0 through 8.1 on Linux and Windows (x86, x86_64, IA64)
MIPSpro 7.3 through 7.4 on IRIX64 (MIPS)
MSVC 6.0 through 7.1 on Windows (x86, x86_64, IA64)
SunPro 5.3 through 5.7 on Solaris 6 through 10 (x86, x86_64, SPARC)
Ports to other platforms such MVS, OS/390, Siemens Reliant/CDS++,
VMS, and z/OS have also been done, although they are not being
maintained on the development branch.
The tarball that's on our Web page(*) is a snapshot of the
development branch tested at the time on most (although not
all) of the platforms above.
(*) http://www.roguewave.com/opensource/
Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Proposal for STDCXX
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
At 03:43 PM 6/1/2005, Martin Sebor wrote:
>GNU libstdc++ is a fine implementation of the standard but its
>big limitation is its dependency on gcc. What differentiates
>our implementation is its portability to all the other compilers
>besides gcc, which on most platforms other than Linux is still
>an inferior choice when compared to the native compiler.
Can you give us a sense of the 'currently' supported platforms
and compilers? (Obviously, with this mission, the breadth of
these would grow with time as an ASF project.)
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Proposal for STDCXX
Posted by Martin Sebor <se...@roguewave.com>.
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
...
> There's at least one open implementation out there now: the GNU STL.
> What differentiates the RW codebase from the GNU one? If there are
> bugs or performance, uh, deficiencies in the GNU one, why not submit
> the changes to the gcc crowd?
GNU libstdc++ is a fine implementation of the standard but its
big limitation is its dependency on gcc. What differentiates
our implementation is its portability to all the other compilers
besides gcc, which on most platforms other than Linux is still
an inferior choice when compared to the native compiler.
Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Proposal for STDCXX
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Technical issues having been commented on ...
> in light of http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2005-05/msg00134.html
> and its complete thread.
The claims that the ASF has an NIH issue are contradicted by the existance
of the Incubator. These aren't projects invented here. They are projects
being brought here by their "inventors" because this is where they want to
build community, and because the AL is the license that they want to use.
And it really shouldn't be surprising that as Open Source penetrates further
into the traditional commercial software community, that they choose a
vendor friendly partner.
> I'd still like to know why this came out,
Rogue Wave wanted to, and people here liked the idea enough to sponsor it?
> why it came here,
At a guess, because of our license and processes. This is born out in part
by the proposal:
There are other free implementations, but none have the
quality, license flexibility, or platform support
necessary to serve as a universal foundation for [C++]
> and why some other people here like it.
What's not to like, if you're a C++ programmer?
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org