From: "Andrew Crabtree" <andrewc AT rosemail DOT rose DOT hp DOT com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Is PGCC really worth it?
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 11:55:31 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <6cv8jd$d75$1@rosenews.rose.hp.com>
References: <01bd4150$afde1c00$LocalHost AT default>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ros51675cra.rose.hp.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk


Rylan wrote in message <01bd4150$afde1c00$LocalHost AT default>...
>I am writing an application that might benefit a lot form intensive
>optimisation. Using -O3 (or -O2 with various switches) does seem to help,
>but I'm thinking that Pentium opti's might be even better.
It depends what you mean by 'intensize optimisation'.  Generally, huge speed
increases are only realized by changes of a high-level nature.  Often times
you can get performance gains in the 100+% range by changing your method.
With compiler level optimizations you are talking about typically 5-30%.
Combining the two is the best approach, but if you have to choose one, go
with the good high level method.

>worth it to go PGCC, 'cause I heard that lots of stuff is "broken" in PGCC
Such as?  I've gotten a whoppin total of 0 bug reports against the C
compiler from the 1.0.1 release (C++ does have a few problems).

>and, if I do go PGCC, will it really give me a noticeable speed advantage,
>if I use the PGCC libc too?
Depends on the application.