Message-Id: <200006021728.UAA02143@mailgw1.netvision.net.il>
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 20:27:05 +0200
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.1.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.5b
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel <kalum AT lintux DOT cx>
CC: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0006022139280.613-100000@roadrunner.grendel.net>
	(message from Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel on Fri, 2 Jun 2000 21:46:30
	+0600 (LKT))
Subject: Re: Internal compiler error
References:  <Pine DOT LNX DOT 4 DOT 21 DOT 0006022139280 DOT 613-100000 AT roadrunner DOT grendel DOT net>
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

> Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 21:46:30 +0600 (LKT)
> From: Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel <kalum AT lintux DOT cx>
> 
> 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.

That is true.

> 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.....

I'm not sure I understand what are you trying to say here, but if it's
that GCC produces code that is inferior to Watcom, then I suggest to
take a look at the compiler comparison page,
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/6552/compila.html,
maintained by Salvador Eduardo Tropea.  I think you will be surprised
(pleasantly, I hope ;-).

This thread was about memory consumption by the compiler, not the
quality of the code it generates.  These are two different and
uncorellated issues.

> 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...

Since when is the consumer base a reliable evidence about the quality
of the product?  Should I remind you the Windows vs Linux case?