From: adt AT netcom DOT com (Tony Tribelli)
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: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 21:17:39 -0700
Organization: Delta Internet Services, Inc.
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <adt-ya023080000809972117390001@news.deltanet.com>
References: <3412BD25 DOT 1F30 AT mho DOT net> <5uuqci$15l AT sjx-ixn5 DOT ix DOT netcom DOT com> <adt-ya023080000809970053140001 AT news DOT deltanet DOT com> <5v1vtb$qc5 AT sjx-ixn10 DOT ix DOT netcom DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.254.69.38
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk

firewind <firewind AT metroid DOT dyn DOT ml DOT org> wrote:
> 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, ...

No, it's merely an example of where gcc optimized code has fine performance.

> ... 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.

It's their choice after running tests of various compilers, trying out code
that they expect to model their performance bottlenecks, and making
measurements of the runtimes.

> > > 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? ...

Gcc spitting out "internal compiler error" is a good description.

> ... 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.

See a different post I made in this thread a few minutes ago, vast majority
of resources and tools using Intel syntax. 

Tony
------------------
Tony Tribelli
adtribelli AT acm DOT org