🚀 go-pugleaf

ochealth@unixg.ubc.ca (ochealth) writes:

>In article <BwIEpL.2p0@nic.umass.edu> s6883289@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Peter Hawkins) writes:
>>so which compiler produce smaller, faster and less buggy programs? or they're
>>about the same? is there a detailed report comparing the two compilers???

>Both compilers use GNU CC as the main compiler stuff in the package.
>The raw code is identical.

>Faster? same for both. However, EMX does floating point calls like sin, cos
>etc in assembler. gcc/2 does them in C, gcc/2 is much slower in this area.

It should be noted that the port of f2c for OS/2 on ftp-os2.nmsu.edu has a
substitute C library for gcc/2 that solves the math speed problem.  I am
not advocating use of gcc/2 over gcc-emx, but I do hope that those who
program in gcc/2 use the improved library.    The speed difference is
tremendous even if there is only a liitle floating point math in the 
application.
Roger Fearick included f2c libraries for both compilers in his f2c port.

>-- 
>______________________________________________________________________________
>jpm: ochealth@unixg.ubc.ca         
>                            Happily using OS/2 2.0 because MS Windows isNT ___
>                                                      Insert VapourFeature ^^^
-- 
John P. Serafin  |  Operating a bicycle is more like driving than riding.
jps@netcom.com   |  Operating an automobile is more like riding than driving.