Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 12:07:50 +0200 (IST) From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz AT is To: Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: Why did ID choose DJGPP for Quake? In-Reply-To: <94711738901@out.newmail.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: dj-admin AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Wed, 5 Jan 2000, Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel wrote: > I too like Watcom (it was my first compiler for developing 32bit > extended dos apps) and IMHO the code produced by Watcom > version 10.x was better than GCC 2.81. AFAIK, Watcom 10.x was roughly identical to GCC 2.8.1. > However I haven't checked about the 2.952 versions of GCC and > there optimisations. GCC 2.9x produces faster code than Watcom does. It's all on SET's compiler comparison page, just read there. > I might be wrong but I don't think there would be any on this > newsgroup using a 386+287 for serious work in 2000. You would be wrong. Search this news group's archives, and you will see. > It is indeed suprising how much software (which cannot practically > be run on a 386) for example that trash windoze, are compiled > using only 386 specific instructions. IMHO they really shoud ditch > 386 and consider optimizing for at least the 486 and using 486 > specific intructions (the ideal would be pentium specific > instructions). You aren't talking about DJGPP, are you? Because DJGPP library and utilities are compiled with -m486 switch. The only reason we don't compile with -mpentium is because we still didn't switch to GCC 2.9x for building the library, and versions of GCC before 2.9x didn't support Pentium-specific optimizations.