Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 21:46:30 +0600 (LKT) From: Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel X-Sender: kalum AT roadrunner DOT grendel DOT net To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: Internal compiler error In-Reply-To: <39373C0F.C6ACCFBA@softhome.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Fri, 2 Jun 2000, Laurynas Biveinis wrote: > > Watcom is portable only across various ix86 platforms, while GCC is portable > across lots and lots different architectures. IMHO this is times bigger challenge - > to write good optimizing compiler which would do a good job for a broad range > of architectures. Well in the end what really matters is not the portability but how good is the code that the compiler produces for a specific architecture. It is of no use if the vastly architecturally portable compiler generates tolerable code for the x86 platform...as anyone would prefer a less architecturely portable compiler which generates better code which is specifically tailored for the x86 chipset.. Which is why the majority of people still use Watcom/MS C++ extensively for coding for the x86 platform..... Could anyone please tell me how many x86 architecture based exes out of the many that you come across are compiled using GCC...much less than the ones that are compiled using Watcom/borland/M$C and other x86 specific compilers... Grendel Hi, I'm a signature virus. plz set me as your signature and help me spread :)