From: Paul Shirley <Paul AT no DOT spam DOT please>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: How fast is DJGPP?
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 01:23:38 +0100
Organization: wot? me?
Lines: 25
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <eYkhRGAKY59zEwPM@foobar.co.uk>
References: <33F4D499 DOT 52C15699 AT spectra DOT net>
 <199708170030 DOT KAA06165 AT rabble DOT uow DOT edu DOT au>
Reply-To: Paul Shirley <Paul AT chocolat DOT obvious DOT fake DOT foobar DOT co DOT uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: chocolat.foobar.co.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk

In article <199708170030 DOT KAA06165 AT rabble DOT uow DOT edu DOT au>, *** Brett ***
<bporter AT rabble DOT uow DOT edu DOT au> writes
>Bear in mind that iD dumped Watcom (in DooM) to use DJGPP in Quake, which is
>only meant to run on a Pentium. The only reason that they would do this is
>that DJGPP is better, I mean they'd already paid for Watcom, so they
>wouldn't care about DJGPP being free... and it isn't like the money would
>matter to them anymore anyway :)

There is another possibility: Watcom is buggy and there's more chance of
fixing any bugs in gcc. I never managed to get *any* reply to bug-
reports or questions about Watcom 10.6.

(Would you believe we can't build a working copy of Duke Nukem with
Watcom 10.5 or 10.6, it only builds correctly under 10.0! Of course if
3D Realms had not programmed round the bugs in 10.0 maybe it would work
;)

Ultimately the speed question is a red herring: theres not much
difference between Watcom and gcc (I'd give Watcom the edge in fpu code,
its just bad rather than awful) but if you're using asm for the
important bits the rest of the code might as well be in BASIC!

---
Visit www.dukepsx.com: see what I do all day.
Paul Shirley: my email address is 'obvious'ly anti-spammed