Re: gcc versus cl

[akbara <syedali011 at earthlink dot net>]

thanks for the detailed msg :)

i'll be sure to check out the switches later today when i boot back
into linux to work on portability.
sometimes i really wish linux had a more robust/standard
implementions of copy/paste, taskbar, standard set of keybindings
across most apps.
and dev environments as well. kdevelop is okay, but the fact that i
can't start a project with a lower case is a deathwish.
i really do hope newer revesions of the dev env (anjuta and kdevelop
come to mind) get up to speed when compared to vc6..
http://plepstudios.com/tmp/desktop.jpg
visual assist is pretty neat once you get it setup right :)

laterz,
-akbara

On Thu, 6 Sep 2001 14:34:10 -0700, Tim Prince wrote:
>MSVC and gcc don't have much in common, other than both being C
>and/or C++ compilers with differing standards compliance goals,
>but my floating point performance comparison this week shows
>gcc-3.1 code running typically 15% faster than MSVC6 on P4 (20%
>if P4 specific code and abrupt underflow is selected).  gcc.3.0.1
>is not so consistently faster.  In order to get this performance
>from gcc on Windows, I must use a non-standard configuration of
>binutils to get more frequently favorable data alignments, as
>well as working out mathinline.h.  Don't tell BG, because my
>employer doesn't want to buck him on the issue of running free
>software on Windows.  Most people will be running gcc for its
>compatibility with environments other than those where MSVC is
>workable.  Too many factors involved for any direct comparison.
>
>In order to view the code generation conveniently, as opposed to
>make a working .s file, make your .o with -g on, and run
>objdump -S against it, and don't rely 100% on correctness of the
>display.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "akbara" <akbar_a@acm.org>
>To: "Mailing List - GCC" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
>Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 2:06 PM
>Subject: gcc versus cl
>
>
>> hey,
>> i was wondering, but do you guys know of any articles where the
>author
>> compares
>> gcc release 3.0.1 hopefully against the newest release of
>microsoft's
>> compiler.
>> be intersting to read..
>>
>> cause i always get windows developers telling me what's so
>special about gcc
>> and what it can do better then cl...
>> i'm not an advanced user of gcc or anything, but usually i just
>tell them
>> that usually we can get builds that generate faster code in our
>floating
>> point intensive apps...
>> although gcc takes a while to compile though... and iirc, the
>stl
>> implemention with gcc is supposed to be a lot more
>robust/complete then
>> microsoft's take at it..
>>
>> btw, is there a way to get gcc -S to dump with our own variable
>names that
>> we used when we wrote the orignal code (instead of having gcc
>dump with the
>> way it handles everythign internally..)?
>>
>> anyways,
>> l8rz
>> -akbara.
>>
>


--
akbara, syedali011@earthlink.net on 09/06/2001