|Comparing Compilers email@example.com (G P) (2004-11-06)|
|Re: Comparing Compilers firstname.lastname@example.org (TOUATI Sid) (2004-11-14)|
|Re: Comparing Compilers email@example.com (G P) (2004-11-14)|
|Re: Comparing Compilers firstname.lastname@example.org (G P) (2004-11-17)|
|Re: Comparing Compilers email@example.com (A Pietu Pohjalainen) (2004-11-17)|
|Re: Comparing Compilers firstname.lastname@example.org (Dick Weaver) (2004-11-17)|
|Re: Comparing Compilers email@example.com (TOUATI Sid) (2004-11-28)|
|Re: Comparing Compilers firstname.lastname@example.org (2004-12-13)|
|From:||TOUATI Sid <email@example.com>|
|Date:||14 Nov 2004 22:39:57 -0500|
|Organization:||Universite de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines|
|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.
> ["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.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.