Re: Comparing Compilers

14 Nov 2004 22:39:57 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Comparing Compilers (G P) (2004-11-06)
Re: Comparing Compilers (TOUATI Sid) (2004-11-14)
Re: Comparing Compilers (G P) (2004-11-14)
Re: Comparing Compilers (G P) (2004-11-17)
Re: Comparing Compilers (A Pietu Pohjalainen) (2004-11-17)
Re: Comparing Compilers (Dick Weaver) (2004-11-17)
Re: Comparing Compilers (TOUATI Sid) (2004-11-28)
Re: Comparing Compilers (2004-12-13)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: TOUATI Sid <>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 14 Nov 2004 22:39:57 -0500
Organization: Universite de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines
References: 04-11-015
Keywords: practice
Posted-Date: 14 Nov 2004 22:39:57 EST

This is a good discussion.

The difference in speed of the compilation is vague too. If you compile
in 4 seconds instead of 4.9 seconds, I doubt that a human would see a
difference even if you plot 22,5 % of speed difference.

However, if you compile in 4 days instead of 4.9 days, a human would see
the difference (I know, compiling during many days isn't the best example).

The same remark for code size : who cares if you generate a code of 4.9
Ko instead of 4 ko. However, I think that many people would care if you
generate 4.9 Go instead of 4 Go.

> Regards
> GP
> ["Compare two compilers" is a uselessly vague assignment. You, or more
> likely the person who assigned you the job, need to decide what you care
> about. Quality of documentation? Responsiveness of the vendor to bug
> reports? Flexibility of debug features? Correctness of object code?
> Size of object code? Size of executable with libraries? Something else?

I would add the quality of the internal design too (in terms of software
engineering) and its portability.


Post a followup to this message

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