delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
From: | "Alexei A. Frounze" <dummy_addressee AT hotmail DOT com> |
Newsgroups: | comp.os.msdos.djgpp |
Subject: | Re: Support for higher end cpus |
Date: | Tue, 2 Jan 2001 06:31:13 -0500 |
Lines: | 27 |
Message-ID: | <92se4e$7tpsk$1@ID-57378.news.dfncis.de> |
References: | <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1010102105533 DOT 18307B AT is> <92sdjs$3p5$1 AT bob DOT news DOT rcn DOT net> |
NNTP-Posting-Host: | pppa15-resalerochester3-5r7104.dialinx.net (4.4.209.204) |
X-Trace: | fu-berlin.de 978435023 8316820 4.4.209.204 (16 [57378]) |
X-Priority: | 3 |
X-MSMail-Priority: | Normal |
X-Newsreader: | Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 |
X-MimeOLE: | Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 |
To: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com |
DJ-Gateway: | from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp |
Reply-To: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com |
<naisbodo AT enteract DOT com> wrote in message news:92sdjs$3p5$1 AT bob DOT news DOT rcn DOT net... > 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%. When I compiled my 3d-engine using GCC with minimum assembly language involved I got the engine twice as fast as a version compiled by Watcom. IMHO, this depends, but GCC is much better than Watcom in terms of optimizations, not just 102%. I was amazed by this fact because I thought Watcom is the best... But then I met GCC and I changed ny mind. :) Happy New Year -- Alexei A. Frounze alexfru [AT] chat [DOT] ru frounze [AT] ece [DOT] rochester [DOT] edu http://alexfru.chat.ru http://members.xoom.com/alexfru/ http://welcome.to/pmode/
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |