Re: Re: Why some PC C compilers are useless

Peter Eriksson <>
Mon, 11 May 1992 10:23:06 GMT

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Re: Re: Why some PC C compilers are useless (Peter Eriksson) (1992-05-11)
| List of all articles for this month |

Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: Peter Eriksson <>
Keywords: C, MSDOS, GCC, performance
Organization: Compilers Central
Date: Mon, 11 May 1992 10:23:06 GMT (Cliff Click) writes:

>I like Borland products as well, enough so that simple problems like CR/LF
>I'm willing to work around. If Borland fixes his compiler, will he also
>fix the endless DOS text utilities that assume CR/LF?

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:

        23389 dhrys/s


Peter Eriksson
Lysator Academic Computer Society ...!uunet!!pen
University of Linkoping, Sweden

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.