Date:	Tue, 16 Sep 1997 10:56:46 +0200 (MET DST)
From:	Jan Hubicka <hubicka AT ta DOT jcu DOT cz>
To:	Paul Hsieh <qed AT chromatic DOT com>
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: The numer 1 compiler, DJGPP or MSVC Here's a good rating comparision
In-Reply-To:	<MPG.e8764aba8e6138e9896e2@nntp.chromatic.com>
Message-ID:	<Pine.LNX.3.95.970916105336.6122A-100000@tabor.ta.jcu.cz>
MIME-Version:	1.0

> Why do people constantly follow this incorrect line of reasoning?  Quake 
> II, like Quake and DOOM before it, is bottlenecked behind graphics 
> performance which is dealt with entirely in assembly language.  In DOOM 
> they were two very small assembly routines, in Quake it was significantly 
> more.  Their choice of C compiler was dictated by factors *other* than 
> compiler code generation performance, because they are never caught 
> behind compiler bottlenecks in the first place!
This is probably true. I am making program XaoS (wich is realtime fractal
zoomer) and it is completly coded in C and speed is really significant.
I found GCC as the best compiler for that (I done tests at Watcom, VC,
Borland etc) and GCC won, at least in FP mset calcualtion loop it seems to
be best optimizing compiler around (and egcs (pre-gcc3.0) got another 30%
speedup) So I don't think that GCC generates ugly code. See Borland one
instead :)

Honza
 > 
> -- 
> Paul Hsieh
> http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/9498/mailme.html
> 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Have you browsed my www pages? Look at:
                       http://www.paru.cas.cz/~hubicka
      Koules-the game for Svgalib,X11 and OS/2,  Xonix-the game for X11
      czech documentation for linux index, original 2D computer art and
              funny 100 years old photos and articles are there!

- Raw text -