RE: Sun compares their compiler tools to GNU tools

[James Mansion <james at westongold dot com>]

> From: Ruslan Shevchenko [mailto:Ruslan@Shevchenko.Kiev.UA]
> Subject: Re: Sun compares their compiler tools to GNU tools
> ...
> The test suite must consists of:
> 
>   1. standart implementation of well-known algorithms.
>    (for example, map<int,less<int> >::lexicographical_compare in loop)

Absolutely.  I'd look for a lot of STL issues, also things that exercise
new and
delete in all forms.  Something that works like Tools.H++ usage wouldbe
useful too.

>  
>   2. tupical C++ scientific application.
>    (LINPACK or blass; or some well known simmulation algorithms)
> 
>   3. tupical C++ business application.
>    (for example, some CORBA server.)

The problem here will be to avoid being opsys specific. I'd like to know
where
comilers stand from the point of valuing options and I don't care about
the OS.
It *seems* with rather unscientific test that VC++ and Watcom C++ work
well,
as does the Intel reference compiler, and that Borland, gcc-based
compilers,
and so on are 'also ran' at best.  I was pleasantly susrprised by the
performance
of VC++.

But the tests I did were limited, and I'd like to see a better test.

SpecInt doesn't really work well sincce it relies too much on a
Unix-like IO
library and OS performance.

> 
> 
> -- 
>     @=                                   
>      //RSSH                             
> mailto:Ruslan@Shevchenko.Kiev.UA
> 
> CORBA in Ukraine & ex-USSR: http://www.corbadev.kiev.ua
>