Re: Best C Compiler

Article View: comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer

Article #78

Back to comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer Previous Next

#78

From: Steve Resnick
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 1990 17:53

12 lines
1097 bytes

I have Turbo C and MSC Both. In trying to determine which one builds the 
tighter code, I compiled MicroEMACS 3.10 (Beta) under MSC. I used the maximum
optimizations on both. MSC Failed with an internal compiler error. Without 
optimizations, it compiled and linked, but, alas, Emacs would crash. The
Turbo C compiled version works fine. I have been using it as my editor at work
for over a year. The Turbo C version was also 10K smaller. I don't know if
MicroEMACS is really a good benchmark, but it's big and is supported by 
a variety of compilers on various platforms.

BTW - I used TC 2.0 and MSC 5.1

Steve

Technical Details

Message-ID: <1990Mar19.175316.16898@Octopus.COM>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!think!snorkelwacker!apple!vsi1!octopus!stever

References: <1722@geocub.greco-prog.fr> <1264@doitcr.doit.sub.org>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!think!snorkelwacker!apple!vsi1!octopus!stever
From: stever@Octopus.COM (Steve Resnick )
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer
Subject: Re: Best C Compiler
Keywords: Compilers
Message-ID: <1990Mar19.175316.16898@Octopus.COM>
Date: 19 Mar 90 17:53:16 GMT
References: <1722@geocub.greco-prog.fr> <1264@doitcr.doit.sub.org>
Reply-To: stever@octopus.UUCP (Steve Resnick )
Organization: Octopus Enterprises, Cupertino CA
Lines: 13

Reply to Parent Message