Re: Thompson's 2c vs. gcc

Michael John Haertel <mike@skinner.cs.uoregon.edu>
Thu, 4 Feb 1993 04:02:03 GMT

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Re: Architecture description languages for compilers? pardo@cs.washington.edu (1993-01-28)
Thompson's 2c vs. gcc mike@skinner.cs.uoregon.edu (Michael John Haertel) (1993-01-29)
Re: Thompson's 2c vs. gcc preston@dawn.cs.rice.edu (1993-02-02)
Re: Thompson's 2c vs. gcc mike@skinner.cs.uoregon.edu (Michael John Haertel) (1993-02-04)
Re: Thompson's 2c vs. gcc jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (1993-02-04)
Re: Thompson's 2c vs. gcc pardo@cs.washington.edu (1993-02-05)
Re: Thompson's 2c vs. gcc meissner@osf.org (1993-02-05)
fast compilers [Re: Thompson's 2c vs. gcc] oz@ursa.sis.yorku.ca (1993-02-06)
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: Michael John Haertel <mike@skinner.cs.uoregon.edu>
Keywords: architecture, GCC
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 93-01-205 93-02-030
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.
--

Post a followup to this message

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