This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: ANSI-C++ compliance?
- To: bothner at cygnus dot com, jbuck at synopsys dot com
- Subject: Re: ANSI-C++ compliance?
- From: mrs at wrs dot com (Mike Stump)
- Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 14:13:08 -0700
- Cc: egcs at cygnus dot com, jab3 at hotmail dot com
> From: Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.com>
> To: bothner@cygnus.com (Per Bothner)
> Date: Mon, 14 Sep 98 16:16:36 PDT
> Cc: jab3@hotmail.com, egcs@cygnus.com
> Unfortunately Dr. Dobbs' Journal just published an article
> describing benchmarks for C++. While the benchmarks look
> interesting, the author tested the exceptions performance of g++
> 2.7.2.1 ! (Sigh). And this is for a piece in the October 1998
> issue. Even assuming a publication delay of six months that is
> really unfortunate.
Run egcs 1.1 sparc against the 2.7.2.1 compiler using Bench++ to
compare EH performace on the sparc, and then say this again. I
suspect you'll find that egcs 1.1 is worse.
Also his comment was:
`Exception handling in g++ seems to be much more efficient than
that of CC. Similar ratios can be observed on all of the "E"
tests.'
I take this as a complement. :-)
It would be good if someone could do an analysis of compilers from 2.0
to egcs 1.1 and give results across most popular platforms and put it
on a website. :-)
The down side is that most of the tests show that g++ is worse than CC
(a la Sun on Sparc Ultra-2) (2x to 10x). Would be nice to recompare
with egcs 1.1 and see how we do and work on things that are 10x bad.