Re: shared_ptr from dinkumware ... comments??
Gennaro Prota wrote:
On 20 Oct 2006 21:22:13 -0400, "P.J. Plauger" <pjp@dinkumware.com>
wrote:
if you care about ease of installation
and compatibility with TR1 (and hence compatibility with the
next C++ Standard) see our detailed comparison of our stuff
against Boost and gcc (libstdc++) at:
http://www.dinkumware.com/tr1_compare.aspx
Well, while I've never thought that the boost code is anywhere near
production quality, I guess such comparisons mean almost nothing
without the actual code used for testing. One could easily come up
with tests which revert the results. A comparison made that way is
just marketing hype which no professional would take seriously as it
is.
It would be very hard to write a test suite with the opposite results,
as some of the failures are "header not provided". How do you cheat on
that?
When the Boost results for tuple and type traits are in the 96-98%
range, you could probably debate whether there are bugs, or test
errors, or if the standard is unclear. The 0% results for
unordered_map and unordered_set is harder to argue about. A 59% total
for this, is quite reasonable (as is 63%, or 78%, if you choose other
weights).
That the Dinkumware library passes their own tests, is not much of a
surprise. Neither is the fact that they can use the results for
marketing purposes.
Bo Persson
--
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]