Date:	Thu, 6 Jan 2000 12:07:50 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel <kalum AT newmail DOT net>
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Why did ID choose DJGPP for Quake?
In-Reply-To:	<94711738901@out.newmail.net>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1000106120722.20220M-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
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

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.

- Raw text -