|Re: Architecture description languages for compilers? email@example.com (1993-01-28)|
|Thompson's 2c vs. gcc firstname.lastname@example.org (Michael John Haertel) (1993-01-29)|
|Re: Thompson's 2c vs. gcc email@example.com (1993-02-02)|
|Re: Thompson's 2c vs. gcc firstname.lastname@example.org (Michael John Haertel) (1993-02-04)|
|Re: Thompson's 2c vs. gcc email@example.com (1993-02-04)|
|Re: Thompson's 2c vs. gcc firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-02-05)|
|Re: Thompson's 2c vs. gcc email@example.com (1993-02-05)|
|fast compilers [Re: Thompson's 2c vs. gcc] firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-02-06)|
|From:||Michael John Haertel <email@example.com>|
|Date:||Thu, 4 Feb 1993 04:02:03 GMT|
In a moment of wonderful insight that may have cleared this whole matter
up, Preston Briggs wrote:
>Is 2c the same compiler that Thompson writes about in his paper "A New C
>Compiler"? Very well.
> [ ... ]
>Thompson's comparisons with lcc were conducted on the MIPS. It seems
>reasonable that his remarks about gcc reflect the (at the time) poor
>implementation of gcc on the MIPS.
Yes, 2c is the *68020* version of Thompson's compiler. The MIPS version
is called vc. The informal comparisons I conducted were 2c compared with
gcc on a 68020.
I hadn't realized, or had forgotten, that Thompson had conducted his
comparisons on the MIPS. The MIPS port of gcc version 1.x was certainly
not well tuned.
I think this explains everything.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.