> Summary: In general gcc produces reasonably fast code. > Also a lot of code seems to be written with what I call "gnuisms" > and will only compile cleanly using gnu make / gcc etc. > Recent versions of gcc produce very fast code on x86 CPUs. > The big advantage of gcc is portability (and maybe $, but see below). > > My experience with vendor compiler is limited to Sun and SGI, > and in both cases 64 bit support was much better (ie existed :) > and in general the code produced is much faster, especially if > the original source is not optimised. This is unsurprising since > vendor compilers only have to support one or two platforms, > while gcc has to be very general. Different goals, different results. > > Vendor compilers also tend to be better at RAD, and have better IDEs, > sometimes MUCH better. Sometimes they have other nifty features, > one of the best I've ever seen was in SGI's developer kit: the compiler > is auto-parallelizing (sp?). IE throw bog standard C / C++ unthreaded > code at the compiler with the approriate switch turned on and the > compiler will analyze the code and thread it for you. I'm sure a > human could do a better job (no evidence, just gut) but it's still > a fantastic feature. Combined with the fact that their MIPS optimisation > is much better than gcc and their IDE is fantastic and you begin to > see why the stuff is so expensive. > > So, if you just need to compile tgz from the net, use gcc. If you're > writing open source sw for MANY platforms hope the IDEs get better, > or learn Emacs / autoconf / automake. If solving business problem > (ie in-house sw development) wher you have to PAY your developers, > and there's not much value in Open Source (small market, IP, etc) > then buy the vendor stuff, it's very good and will pay for itself > in saved salary $. gcc is NOT cheap if you have to pay developers, > vendor toolsets are thousands a seat, but will drastically improve > productivity, especially for interface design and C++. This will > change once (if?) things like Kdevelop / gIDE etc ever catch up. > > 100% pure opinion. YMMV. IANAL. IANADeveloper, I just support them. > If you lose money, tough, if you make money, my cut is 10% > By reading this email you agree to the above terms, plus any others > I decide to make up and not inform you of. If you don't agree with > the above, return this email (unopened) to the place of purchase > for a full refund. Don't blame me for wierd formatting, blame M$ > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > - > Richard Lane, Unix Specialist #include <disclaimer.h> > EDS Australia - Software Services Asia Pacific > EDS Email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Shaun Cloherty [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 1999 8:27 PM > > To: Sydney Linux Users Group > > Subject: [SLUG] GNU C/C++ v's ... performance comparison ?? > > > > Does anyone know of any performance comparisons between the GNU C/C++ > > compiler and those of commercial vendors?? What about performance > > comparisons across different platforms, say Win95/NT v's > > Solaris, Linux, *NIX?? > > > > Regards, > > > > Shaun > > > > -- > > Shaun Cloherty > > Graduate School of Biomedical Engineering > > University of New South Wales > > > > > > > > -- > > SLUG - Sydney Linux Users Group Mailing List - http://www.slug.org.au > > To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with > > unsubscribe in the text -- SLUG - Sydney Linux Users Group Mailing List - http://www.slug.org.au To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe in the text
