Re: Re: Why some PC C compilers are useless

cliffc@rice.edu (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:


        (-O2)
        23389 dhrys/s


/Peter










Peter Eriksson pen@lysator.liu.se
Lysator Academic Computer Society ...!uunet!lysator.liu.se!pen
University of Linkoping, Sweden
--

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