Message-ID:	<001801bfccea$0782f620$0d00a8c0@mike>
From:	"Michael Stewart" <mike AT reggin DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
To:	<djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	Re: Internal compiler error
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211
Date:	Sat, 3 Jun 2000 00:26:25 +0100
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel <kalum AT lintux DOT cx> wrote in message
news:Pine DOT LNX DOT 4 DOT 21 DOT 0006022139280 DOT 613-100000 AT roadrunner DOT grendel DOT net...
> 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.
and gcc produces very good code.

> 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..
yup.

> Which is why the majority of  people still use Watcom/MS C++
> extensively for coding for the x86 platform.....
dunno about this, never seen the stats.

> 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...
Quake is a fine example of a highly optimised bit of code.

- Raw text -