From: "Matthew Conte" <spam AT somebody DOT else>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: WATCOM or DJGPP
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 22:51:14 -0400
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <6jdm0i$fle@sjx-ixn1.ix.netcom.com>
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 980513120253 DOT 26082O-100000 AT is>
NNTP-Posting-Host: frm-ma6-24.ix.netcom.com
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk

Eli Zaretskii wrote in message ...
>> I am trying to make a 3d engine which needs bottleneck speed. Which
>> compiler would be better (WATCOM c++ 11.0 or DJGPP 2.8). I read somewhere
>> that DJGPP and WATCOM are almost the same in optimization( except for
[...]
>
>The difference was small, and only visible on the Pentium.  Now, with GCC
>2.8.x and PGCC, that difference is gone, AFAIK.

Watcom 11.0 is a turd, but 10.6 still beats out PGCC / GCC in optimization.
GCC is probably one of the least efficient compilers out there (Turbo C++
beats it in many respects), but it is what I use because it's free and
there's plenty of on-line tech support... =)

Later,
Matt.