Re: Re: Why some PC C compilers are useless

Article View: gnu.gcc.help

Article #52828

#52828

From: Peter Eriksson
Date: Mon, 11 May 1992 10:23

38 lines
1700 bytes

cliffc@rice.edu (Cliff Click) writes:

>I like Borland products as well, enough so that simple problems like CR/LF
>I'm willing to work around.  If Borland fixes his compiler, will he also
>fix the endless DOS text utilities that assume CR/LF?  

A guy I know performed a little Dhrystones benchmark between Gcc 2.1 and
Borland C++ 3.0 (Yeah, I know, Gcc uses 32bit mode where Borland uses
16bit mode, but what the heck it's the speed and the ability to handle
large data structures easily that counts :-): (Both tests run on the same
486-based PC of course):

  GCC 2.1:

    (-O1 -m486)     (-O2 -m486)
    42586 dhrys/s   42262 dhrys/s

    (-O1)           (-O2)
    40127 dhrys/s   40127 dhrys/s


  BorlandC++ 3.0:

    (-O2)
    23389 dhrys/s 

/Peter





Peter Eriksson                                              pen@lysator.liu.se
Lysator Academic Computer Society                 ...!uunet!lysator.liu.se!pen
University of Linkoping, Sweden
-- 
Send compilers articles to compilers@iecc.cambridge.ma.us or
{ima | spdcc | world}!iecc!compilers.  Meta-mail to compilers-request.

Technical Details

Message-ID: <92-05-062@gnusenet.comp.compilers>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!lysator.liu.se!pen

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 11318c,bd74dab1adf38bf8,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid11318c,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1992-05-11 12:39:20 PST
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc.help
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!lysator.liu.se!pen
From: pen@lysator.liu.se (Peter Eriksson)
Subject: Re: Re: Why some PC C compilers are useless
Message-ID: <92-05-062@gnusenet.comp.compilers>
Keywords: C, MSDOS, GCC, performance
Sender: gnulists@ai.mit.edu
Organization: Compilers Central
Distribution: gnu
Date: Mon, 11 May 1992 10:23:06 GMT
Lines: 39