🚀 go-pugleaf

pen@lysator.liu.se (Peter Eriksson) writes:

>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 

FLAME ON

On the other hand, Borland's C++ compiler works out of the box, while
f*cking GCC2.1's g++ is like pulling teeth to ever get working (assuming
you actually DO get it working, and assuming you can *guess* what to
do to get libg++ 2.0 to even link a sample program).

FLAME OFF


I'd love to use GCC 2.1 for learning C++.  I have spent the last two years
trying to build any version of g++ on Interactive (386) UNIX.  I have 
wasted many hours, appealed for help over and over, and have NOTHING to
show for it.  I am not stupid, but neither am I a compiler guru.  My
patience is at an end.

I am now in the process of buying Borland C/C++ 3.0.  If GCC ever gets
its shit together, or if someone has useful information on how to make
GCC/G++ work on Interactive 3.0 (not "duh, gee, it works on MY computer")
then I'd be happy to listen to your ideas.  In the meantime, I have
better ways to spend my time.  So the score is:

		FSF: 0
		DOS: 1

Shameful, isn't it.

Mark Jeghers