We're out of tree codes; now what?

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

Basile STARYNKEVITCH <basile@starynkevitch.net> writes:

[...]

| I'm sorry to ask such a (probably naive) question, but do someone have a
| precise idea of the performance strengths and weaknesses of GCC and of other
| opensource compilers (like LLVM, Open64, TinyCC, ...) or even compiler for
| different languages (SBCL, Haskell, SML, Java, ...).

I have no _direct_ comparison between SBCL and GCC.  However, for one
project I'm working on, I've been able to use both SBCL and GCL (which
uses GNU C as back-end).  While I affectionally go with GCL, I must
applaud SBCL for its quality, speed, and informative notes.

  http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/axiom-developer/2007-03/msg00047.html

I'm only a SBCL user, not developer -- and I'm not familiar with its
code base.  
I work with GCL code base, but its documentation is just as good that of
Axiom (which is a constant real pain for us).  GCC definitely has an
edge there. 

Camm Maguire (the main GCL developer), Robert Boyer and I all agree
that GCC's speed badly affects GCL's speed negatively.  [ GCL
compiles Lisp codes by translation to C codes, compilation on the
fly. ]


For HAskell, GHC is the autoritative compiler.  Overall, I tend to
find it as good as GCC -- except that GHC comes with *lots* of
libraries and good documentation; but, we are not comparing libraries
here I think. 

[...]

| Maybe a Wiki page on this might help,

Definitely.

-- Gaby