🚀 go-pugleaf

From article <1991Jan9.170423.24965@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>, by rschmidt@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (roy schmidt):
> 
> I didn't do a runoff between the two compilers (TC 2.0 and TC++) for
> compilation speed.  IMHO, I think this would splitting hairs.  The more
> important points are adherence to ANSI C, library support, and code
> optimization.  Saving even one minute in compile time is just not heart-
> stirring for me :-).

Boy might you be in for a surprise!

In my experience (AT&T 6300 - 8 MHz 8086, 640K RAM, 1MB Expanded mem),
TC++ compiling a C program is comparable in speed (~10% slower) to TC 2.0.
TC++ Compiling a comparable C++ program is several times slower. In fact,
if you have no EMS, C++ compilations can take TEN TIMES as long. C++ is
clearly a memory hog: Without EMS, 2000 lines of C++ starts TC 1.0
swapping (and you often #include 1000-1500 lines of headers!).
Also, tcc seems to be somewhat faster than tc, and seems to require less
memory as well; the environment supplied by tc is convenient for small
or medium programs (assuming project-file "make" is good enough for
your project; i.e. only .c and .cpp files).

I STRONGLY recommend at least 1 Mb of EMS for TC++; 2 Mb does not seem
to make much difference. If you have an 80386, extended memory is just
as good.

Tom Roberts
att!ihlpl!tjrob  TJROB@IHLPL.ATT.COM