Date:	Fri, 2 Jun 2000 21:46:30 +0600 (LKT)
From:	Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel <kalum AT lintux DOT cx>
X-Sender:	kalum AT roadrunner DOT grendel DOT net
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Internal compiler error
In-Reply-To:	<39373C0F.C6ACCFBA@softhome.net>
Message-ID:	<Pine.LNX.4.21.0006022139280.613-100000@roadrunner.grendel.net>
MIME-Version:	1.0
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

On Fri, 2 Jun 2000, Laurynas Biveinis wrote:

> 
> Watcom is portable only across various ix86 platforms, while GCC is portable
> across lots and lots different architectures. IMHO this is times bigger challenge -
> to write good optimizing compiler which would do a good job for a broad range
> of architectures.

Well in the end what really matters is not the portability but how good is
the code that the compiler produces for a specific architecture.

It is of no use if the vastly architecturally portable compiler generates
tolerable code for the x86 platform...as anyone would prefer a less
architecturely portable compiler which generates better code which is
specifically tailored for the x86 chipset..

Which is why the majority of  people still use Watcom/MS C++ 
extensively for coding for the x86 platform.....

Could anyone please  tell me how many x86 architecture based exes out of
the many that you come across are compiled using GCC...much less than the
ones that are compiled using Watcom/borland/M$C and other x86 specific
compilers...

Grendel

Hi, I'm a signature virus. plz set me as your signature and help me spread
:)

- Raw text -