Message-ID:	<38FB0E49.25D6BCE1@maths.unine.ch>
Date:	Mon, 17 Apr 2000 15:14:50 +0200
From:	Gautier <gautier DOT demontmollin AT maths DOT unine DOT ch>
Organization:	Maths - Uni =?iso-8859-1?Q?Neuch=E2tel?=
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.72 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-Accept-Language:	en
MIME-Version:	1.0
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: inefficiency of GCC output code & -O problem
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000413112851 DOT 28180G-100000 AT is> <38F6137B DOT 47481761 AT mtu-net DOT ru> <8d76dk$dg5$1 AT nets3 DOT rz DOT RWTH-Aachen DOT DE> <38F74CD0 DOT 6987E15A AT mtu-net DOT ru> <8dep4b$g5f$1 AT nets3 DOT rz DOT RWTH-Aachen DOT DE> <38FAF400 DOT 1B7FE2E6 AT mtu-net DOT ru>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	mac13-32.unine.ch
X-Trace:	17 Apr 2000 15:14:51 +0100, mac13-32.unine.ch
Lines:	15
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

"Alexei A. Frounze":

> Sure BP and older versions of BC++ has no good optimizers (BP mostly).

For BP I'd say there is no optimiser at all... (Well, it puts XOR AX,AX
to zero AX, and simplifies some constant expressions computable at compile-time
but that's all!)

BTW there is a good overview of GCC optmisations at GNAT pages:

http://www.act-europe.fr/act/texts/gnat_technology/gnat_gcc.htm
(A copy @ http://www.gnat.com/texts/gnat_technology/gnat_gcc.htm )

______________________________________________________
Gautier  --  http://members.xoom.com/gdemont/gsoft.htm

- Raw text -