Message-ID: <001801bfccea$0782f620$0d00a8c0@mike> From: "Michael Stewart" To: Subject: Re: Internal compiler error X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 00:26:25 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel wrote in message news:Pine DOT LNX DOT 4 DOT 21 DOT 0006022139280 DOT 613-100000 AT roadrunner DOT grendel DOT net... > On Fri, 2 Jun 2000, Laurynas Biveinis wrote: > > > > > Watcom is portable only across various ix86 platforms, while GCC is portable > > across lots and lots different architectures. IMHO this is times bigger challenge - > > to write good optimizing compiler which would do a good job for a broad range > > of architectures. > > Well in the end what really matters is not the portability but how good is > the code that the compiler produces for a specific architecture. and gcc produces very good code. > It is of no use if the vastly architecturally portable compiler generates > tolerable code for the x86 platform...as anyone would prefer a less > architecturely portable compiler which generates better code which is > specifically tailored for the x86 chipset.. yup. > Which is why the majority of people still use Watcom/MS C++ > extensively for coding for the x86 platform..... dunno about this, never seen the stats. > Could anyone please tell me how many x86 architecture based exes out of > the many that you come across are compiled using GCC...much less than the > ones that are compiled using Watcom/borland/M$C and other x86 specific > compilers... Quake is a fine example of a highly optimised bit of code.