Mail Archives: djgpp/2001/01/02/06:36:43
Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> wrote:
> On 2 Jan 2001 naisbodo AT enteract DOT com wrote:
>>
>> > I think you will find that gcc produces code that's as good as
>> > any code made by a proprietary compiler.
>>
>> I think you most definitely will not.
>
> While we could continue arguing about this till Kingdom Come
I don't think this is the case. Given numbers, we can come to
a relatively quick conclusion, both being reasonable people.
> someone has already done the footwork of comparing performance
> of GCC-compiled code to that of other compilers. See:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/6552/compila.html
>
> (this URL is mentioned in section 14.1 of the FAQ, btw).
Your FAQ is excellent, and thank you for the reference. I've seen
other comparisons, but none on Intel.
> Guess what? GCC does seem to produce code that is as good or better
> than proprietary compilers, including MSVC, according to SET's data in
> the above page.
I'm confused. I did in fact see the above URL, but it puts GCC at
a level comparable to the defunct Watcom compiler and ranks MSVC
as the clear leader. In all but three categories, MSVC came out
ahead of gcc, and in those three it was not far behind; overall
it had a 125% speed (normalized to Watcom), while gcc came out
to at best 102%.
I would use different compilers for comparison. But then, that
wouldn't be very topical because most good compilers that compete
with gcc don't run on Intel. So I'll leave it at the statistics
you've supplied, and ask you to point out the specific numbers
which place GCC at a comparable level with MSVC.
Mind you, I don't intend to argue against use of GCC. You have
snipped all of my positive comments on the compiler. I think
it's important to keep a balanced view of compilers, staying
aware of both benefits and drawbacks of each.
IMHO GCC is the winner, all things considered.
--
naisbodo AT enteract DOT com
- Raw text -