Re: Replacement for MS STL?

From:

"P.J. Plauger" <pjp@dinkumware.com>

Newsgroups:

microsoft.public.vc.stl

Date:

Mon, 25 Sep 2006 15:16:49 -0400

Message-ID:

<GoGdnZG4iPqztoXYnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@giganews.com>

"Tom Widmer [VC++ MVP]" <tom_usenet@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news: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).

We license our Proofer only to our OEM customers now. We include
our Quick Proofer, which is broader but not as deep as the Proofer,
along with our source code these days.

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/).

Nope. We peel the tests apart to avoid having one compile failure
take down unrelated tests.

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.

All the headers are there, they just don't do everything they
should.

P.J. Plauger
Dinkumware, Ltd.
http://www.dinkumware.com