From: firewind <firewind AT metroid DOT dyn DOT ml DOT org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.os.msdos.djgpp,rec.games.programmer
Subject: Re: The numer 1 compiler, DJGPP or MSVC  Here's a good rating comparision
Date: 8 Sep 1997 22:57:47 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <5v1vtb$qc5@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>
References: <3412BD25 DOT 1F30 AT mho DOT net> <5uuqci$15l AT sjx-ixn5 DOT ix DOT netcom DOT com> <adt-ya023080000809970053140001 AT news DOT deltanet DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: elp-tx2-04.ix.netcom.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk

Tony Tribelli <adt AT netcom DOT com> wrote:
> firewind <firewind AT metroid DOT dyn DOT ml DOT org> wrote:

> > ... I have an old 486DX/33 with 8MB of ram ...
> >
> > Execution Speed: DJGPP-compiled programs are faster.
> > Optimization: gcc is a -much- better optimizing compiler than MSVC.

> Possibly true with respect to the ancient 16-bit MSVC++ 1.0 that the
> original poster mentioned and your 486 system. But if we consider more
> recent 32-bit versions, 4.2 and 5.0, targetting Pentium systems, then gcc
> falls way behind. It also trails Watcom and Borland with Intel's backend
> optimizer.

With the release of gcc 2.8.0, which will support Pentium optimizations,
any advantage MSVC, Borland, and Watcom is gone. Also, the binutils have
long supported MMX internally.

At any rate, you chose to quote deliciously out of context. The description
of my machine was not in any way related to the performace of gcc, which
I know to be good as well on other machines. My home box is a 486, but I've
worked and compiled on everything from a 386 to a Pentium Pro.

> For DOS targets professionals used to choose Watcom, for Win32 targets they
> usually choose Visual C++.

This is their choice. It does not make Watcom and VisC++ superior to gcc.

> > Language Choice: DJGPP can compile C, C++, Ada, Pascal, AT&T ASM, Fortran,
> >                  and possibly even more I don't know about.

> gcc is a little flaky with C++, exception handling is the most notorious
> example. Also AT&T assembly syntax is a problem, not an advantage.

How can you accuratly describe the "flakiness" of a language that does not
yet have a standard? Also, although I do not program in assembly myself,
I've heard positive things from AT&T converts. At any rate, there is the
freeware NASM whose output can be linked with gcc and that understands
Intel syntax, if you need it. The AT&T support a problem? It allows asm-
using *nix programs to be easily ported to MS-DOS. I do not see this as
a problem.

-- 
[- 				 firewind	                            -]
[-   email: firewind AT metroid DOT dyn DOT ml DOT org (home), firewind AT aurdev DOT com (work)  -]
[- 	    "You're just jealous because the voices talk to -me-."          -]