Re: Replacement for MS STL?

From:

"Tom Widmer [VC++ MVP]" <tom_usenet@hotmail.com>

Newsgroups:

microsoft.public.vc.stl

Date:

Mon, 25 Sep 2006 14:01:56 +0100

Message-ID:

<uu8RJLK4GHA.4392@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>

Ulrich Eckhardt wrote:

P.J. Plauger wrote:

STLport is also moribund. stlport.org gave up on it years ago,
leaving it to a couple of determined volunteers to keep it going.
See:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/stlport

for their ongoing efforts. We test it regularly, and found that it
hasn't improved in compliance (or correctness) for the past several
years.

Hmmm, I did fix a bug in it, so either your testing methods are flawed or I
did introduce another bug by doing so....how about a concrete example?

Dinkumware used to sell their Proofer, though I don't see it on their
site now. You could contact them about the possibility of licencing it
to test STLport (if you have any money available to the project).

It's certainly the case that in the past the proofer can give a lot of
false negatives, due to each test being reliant on multiple features (as
I recall from the compliance roundup in cuj a few years back -
http://web.archive.org/web/20050218201324/www.cuj.com/documents/s=8193/cuj0104sutter/).
If you had a particular header missing, that might mean that a large
proportion of tests fail, despite the fact that the header in question
only applies directly to a small number of tests.

Tom