From: "Alexei A. Frounze" <dummy_addressee AT hotmail DOT com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Support for higher end cpus
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 06:31:13 -0500
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <92se4e$7tpsk$1@ID-57378.news.dfncis.de>
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1010102105533 DOT 18307B AT is> <92sdjs$3p5$1 AT bob DOT news DOT rcn DOT net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pppa15-resalerochester3-5r7104.dialinx.net (4.4.209.204)
X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 978435023 8316820 4.4.209.204 (16 [57378])
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

<naisbodo AT enteract DOT com> wrote in message
news:92sdjs$3p5$1 AT bob DOT news DOT rcn DOT net...

> I'm confused.  I did in fact see the above URL, but it puts GCC at
> a level comparable to the defunct Watcom compiler and ranks MSVC
> as the clear leader.  In all but three categories, MSVC came out
> ahead of gcc, and in those three it was not far behind; overall
> it had a 125% speed (normalized to Watcom), while gcc came out
> to at best 102%.

When I compiled my 3d-engine using GCC with minimum assembly language
involved I got the engine twice as fast as a version compiled by Watcom.
IMHO, this depends, but GCC is much better than Watcom in terms of
optimizations, not just 102%. I was amazed by this fact because I thought
Watcom is the best... But then I met GCC and I changed ny mind. :)

Happy New Year
--
Alexei A. Frounze
alexfru [AT] chat [DOT] ru
frounze [AT] ece [DOT] rochester [DOT] edu
http://alexfru.chat.ru
http://members.xoom.com/alexfru/
http://welcome.to/pmode/