From: "Stephen Howe" <SPAMGUARDstephen DOT howe AT teamsybase DOT com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Why did ID choose DJGPP for Quake?
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 14:39:38 -0000
Organization: UUNET WorldCom server (post doesn't reflect views of UUNET WorldCom
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <84t0mq$iq6$1@soap.pipex.net>
References: <94622644001 AT out DOT newmail DOT net> <BCna4.65265$X47 DOT 355046 AT quark DOT idirect DOT com> <386A476B DOT C5F9209A AT inti DOT gov DOT ar> <84gsav$bfh$3 AT lure DOT pipex DOT net> <387098AB DOT 97CDE287 AT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tnagbgate202.tnagb.com
X-Trace: soap.pipex.net 946996762 19270 194.202.213.202 (4 Jan 2000 14:39:22 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse AT uk DOT uu DOT net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 4 Jan 2000 14:39:22 GMT
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com


salvador wrote in message <387098AB DOT 97CDE287 AT inti DOT gov DOT ar>...

>> I have looked at that. They are using 10.0a, hardly the newest version of
>> Watcom C/C++. It would be better to do a comparison using 10.6 or 11.0b.
I
>> would be interested to know what switches they used.
>
>I have an article from BYTE, they compared 10.0a and 11.0 and both delivers
the
>almost the same performance.
>And they used the best switches they could found. In fact BYTE coded the
>benchmarks with Watcom in mind as the DOS compiler because they used the
>benchmarks to compare computers.

I would like to see that article. Do you have a URL? The original 11.0 was
quite buggy whereas 11.0b is very stable.  I tend to think that code
generation has not significantly improved over these versions except in some
areas specific to C++.

Thanks

Stephen Howe