Portable C++ standard library

[AndrewAPrice]

What implementations exists? Which would be the easiest to port to my OS?

[frank]

Here's just a few, but since I have been unable to port any of them to my os I can't tell you which one is the easiest.

http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/
http://synesis.com.au/software/stlsoft/
http://ustl.sourceforge.net/
http://www.stlport.org/

[bregma]

What implementations exists? Which would be the easiest to port to my OS?

What C++ compiler are you using that does not come with a standard library?

[Combuster]

What implementations exists? Which would be the easiest to port to my OS?

What C++ compiler are you using that does not come with a standard library?

A compiler for his own OS, perhaps?

[AndrewAPrice]

What implementations exists? Which would be the easiest to port to my OS?

What C++ compiler are you using that does not come with a standard library?

A compiler for his own OS, perhaps?

When I said:

easiest to port to my OS?

I meant the my OS, since this is an osdev forum. I use GCC if you'd like to know.

Right now when I have time (I have too many college projects) I'm porting across the C standard library and writing wrappers for my own functions. I'll worry about C++ later.

[pcmattman]

Right now when I have time (I have too many college projects) I'm porting across the C standard library and writing wrappers for my own functions. I'll worry about C++ later.

You could just port Newlib or another standard C library... Why reinvent the wheel?

[Candy]

Right now when I have time (I have too many college projects) I'm porting across the C standard library and writing wrappers for my own functions. I'll worry about C++ later.

You could just port Newlib or another standard C library... Why reinvent the wheel?

You could just use Windows or another operating system... Why reinvent the wheel?

[AndrewAPrice]

You could just port Newlib or another standard C library... Why reinvent the wheel?

The way the most implementations of the standard C library handles some minor things like printing to the screen (printf()) is incompatible with the way my OS manages console output (a console output will eventually be a pointer to a type of window structure (the 3 window types planned for my window manager are: control-based (OS routines for optimized drawing of buttons/images/components), console-based, and direct-based (for 2d/3d/movie-drawing apps which require direct access to the window buffer and ignores the default window-manager drawing functions))).

Are nested brackets valid English (I used them in coding (like this (and this)))?

[pcmattman]

You could just use Windows or another operating system... Why reinvent the wheel?

<offtopic>
He's copying me!!! Stop it! Stop it!
(remembering childhood)
</offtopic>

Nested brackets are valid if you can still understand what is trying to be said, imho.

[bregma]

The way the most implementations of the standard C library handles some minor things like printing to the screen (printf()) is incompatible with the way my OS manages console output (a console output will eventually be a pointer to a type of window structure (the 3 window types planned for my window manager are: control-based (OS routines for optimized drawing of buttons/images/components), console-based, and direct-based (for 2d/3d/movie-drawing apps which require direct access to the window buffer and ignores the default window-manager drawing functions))).

I sounds more like your planned implementation of the C library is incompatible with the design of the C library. The standard C file streams abstract such details away.

If you're interested in porting the GCC compiler suite, including the C++ standard library, for you OS, all you need do is provide a stadard C library. The easiest way to do that is to port an existing library -- say, newlib. That means you provide a core set of about 8 POSIX-like system calls (eg. write(), abort()) from your OS, and the rest just works.

There's nothing to stop you from providing a complete custom binding library for your own OS. But if you want to use the standard stuff, you'll have to do things in a standard way.

--smw

[AndrewAPrice]

There's nothing to stop you from providing a complete custom binding library for your own OS. But if you want to use the standard stuff, you'll have to do things in a standard way.

--smw

That's like forcing my OS to be designed a certain way - to treat the console as a file stream. The reason I'm inspired to write my OS is because I have some abstract ideas of how to do things. I don't want to be told "this is how a console works" - I don't want to turn it into Yet-Another-POSIX-Clone.

[AJ]

I suppose you could supply some kind of compatibility layer. That way you get to port things like GCC which (will run sub-optimally), but if programmers want to write a specific new app for your OS, they use your library and can expect better performance.

Adam