From:	sumatose AT NOSPAM DOT usa DOT net
Newsgroups:	comp.lang.c++,comp.os.msdos.djgpp,rec.games.programmer
Subject:	Re: The numer 1 compiler, DJGPP or MSVC Here's a good rating comparision
Date:	Mon, 8 Sep 1997 21:45:13 -0400
Organization:	VTL
Lines:	23
Message-ID:	<MPG.e7e74312b8a5abb989824@news.videotron.net>
References:	<3412BD25 DOT 1F30 AT mho DOT net> <5uuqci$15l AT sjx-ixn5 DOT ix DOT netcom DOT com> <adt-ya023080000809970053140001 AT news DOT deltanet DOT com> <5v1vtb$qc5 AT sjx-ixn10 DOT ix DOT netcom DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	ppp052.216.msherb.videotron.net
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

In group rec.games.programmer, firewind says...
> 
> Tony Tribelli <adt AT netcom DOT com> wrote:
> > firewind <firewind AT metroid DOT dyn DOT ml DOT org> wrote:
> 
> > > ... I have an old 486DX/33 with 8MB of ram ...
> > >
> > > Execution Speed: DJGPP-compiled programs are faster.
> > > Optimization: gcc is a -much- better optimizing compiler than MSVC.
> 
> > Possibly true with respect to the ancient 16-bit MSVC++ 1.0 that the
> > original poster mentioned and your 486 system. But if we consider more
> > recent 32-bit versions, 4.2 and 5.0, targetting Pentium systems, then gcc
> > falls way behind. It also trails Watcom and Borland with Intel's backend
> > optimizer.
> 
> With the release of gcc 2.8.0, which will support Pentium optimizations,
> any advantage MSVC, Borland, and Watcom is gone. Also, the binutils have
> long supported MMX internally.

You're certainly in a hurry to make that conclusion about a 
future release.  Show benchmarks.

- Raw text -