Date:	Mon, 19 Jul 1999 21:37:33 +0200
From:	Ronald de Man <deman AT win DOT tue DOT nl>
To:	pgcc AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: pgcc port for WinNT
Message-ID:	<19990719213733.A27956@win.tue.nl>
References:	<420810190799*/S=hpoulard/O=actia/PRMD=actia/ADMD=atlas/C=f r/@MHS> <4 DOT 1 DOT 19990719102508 DOT 00932a10 AT purgatory DOT fdf DOT net>
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Mailer:	Mutt 0.95.4i
In-Reply-To:	<4.1.19990719102508.00932a10@purgatory.fdf.net>; from Dustin Marquess on Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 10:26:14AM -0500
X-Operating-System:	Linux localhost 2.2.10
Reply-To:	pgcc AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	pgcc AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 10:26:14AM -0500, Dustin Marquess wrote:
> At 03:08 AM 7/19/99 , you wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >For few weeks I've compiled several
> >version of egcs (now gcc ;-) on WinNT
> >wihtout to much problems arising !
> >from 1.1.2 to the latest snapshot
> >of the new gcc-2.95,
> >AND I have been really disappointed
> >concerning the speed of the generated
> >code, SINCE the Visual C++ from Micro....
> >generates faster CODE !!!!
> >I cannot stand it AND accept it !!!
> 
> 	Good luck beating VC++ on MS's own OS.  You're getting that we're at an
> unfair advantage here.  MS knows all about the OS and ALL of it's APIs and
> such, we don't.

The OS doesn't have so much to do with this. VC++ is just pretty good
at generating fast x86 code. Of course gcc is much better at generating
SPARC code.

Ronald

- Raw text -