Message-Id: <199912312332.RAA15911@lakdiva.slt.lk>
From: "Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel" <kalum AT crosswinds DOT net>
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 17:33:05 +0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: Why did ID choose DJGPP for Quake?
In-reply-to: <84gsav$bfh$4@lure.pipex.net>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12)
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

On 31 Dec 99, at 0:01, Stephen Howe wrote:

> 
> It varies Andrew. It would better to check the types of optimisation each
> compiler does.

Actually Stephen, IMHO what appears to be fast code from a 
human point of view may fail miserably when it is actually run and 
put to the test. 

So one way would be to run a small computationally intensive 
bechmark program (does anyone have any ideas?) compiled under 
WatcomC++ 11(or whatever is the latest version) and DJGPP/GCC 
2.952 with full optimizations and see which performs better. And 
maybe we can publish the results on this forum for everyone to see.

Whether real/protected mode switches ought to be taken into 
account will also have to be considered. 

Actually IMHO a test of how fast the mode switching routines are 
would really indicate how good a protected mode environment 
really is specially for a real mode OS like DOS(the quality of the 
compiler also plays a part true enough).

Kalum