Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Message-Id: <199907121917.OAA03546@venus.xraylith.wisc.edu>
To: "Reza Habib" <reza AT psych DOT utoronto DOT ca>
cc: "Cygwin Mailing List" <cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
Subject: Re: optimization 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 12 Jul 1999 13:23:04 EDT."
             <000301becc8b$3366ad00$788a94d1 AT newton> 
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 14:17:51 -0500
From: Mumit Khan <khan AT xraylith DOT wisc DOT edu>

"Reza Habib" <reza AT psych DOT utoronto DOT ca> writes:
> Hi.  Can someone tell me how well the code generated by borland c++builder,
> microsoft visual c++, and metrowerks codewarrior (and any other windows
> compilers) compares to the code generated by egcs-1.1.2 with respect to
> floating point performance (my main development platform is windows).  I'm
> in the process of writing some statistical tools for image analysis.  My
> data are in floating point and I will mainly be conducting matrix algebra
> type operations.  I'm trying to pick the compiler which will produce the
> fastest,  most efficient code.  Thanks.

For floating point intensive code, MSVC is hard to beat at this time. However,
for majority of the `real-life' numerical code, it doesn't matter all that much
as long as the compiler codegen performance is reasonably close.

For more info on compilers on x86-win32, please take the discussion elsewhere 
such as comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32 or other compiler forums; this list 
is certainly not the right forum for it.

Regards,
Mumit


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com