Date:	Tue, 16 Oct 2001 19:55:52 -0400
Message-Id:	<200110162355.f9GNtqt13233@envy.delorie.com>
From:	DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<ofgpst05mjgdf36je1pdp48r3r6tumjq1m@4ax.com>
	(Radical DOT NetSurfer AT delorie DOT com)
Subject:	Re: MAKEing Turbo Vision 1.1.3
References:	<im4mstk71bb1ondv81goeqsededhsiqj0b AT 4ax DOT com> <3BCB274A DOT 34F2631 AT inti DOT gov DOT ar> <j0fnst84g4o75b64184kvs3dhlvg3j5gki AT 4ax DOT com> <3BCC49EC DOT 5FB4D8ED AT inti DOT gov DOT ar> <3995-Tue16Oct2001175743+0200-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <20011016130041 DOT A19158 AT kendall DOT sfbr DOT org> <ofgpst05mjgdf36je1pdp48r3r6tumjq1m AT 4ax DOT com>
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

> and THIS is supposed to encourage people to start moving "up" to
> 3.0 ???
> >                        gcc 2.7.2.1     gcc 3.0

Well, a couple of things.

The comparison omits gcc 2.8.1 and 2.95, which were important
releases.

Gcc 3.0 has a lot more functionality than 2.7.2.1.

Bigger code does not mean slower code - it can sometimes be faster
code by avoiding cache-busting jumps.

The sizes do not indicate code vs data vs overhead (debug etc).

"Hello world" is a bad program to do comparisons with.  You should
choose a more real-world program, like gzip or make, and time how long
it takes to build those and how big they are.

- Raw text -