Xref: utzoo comp.unix.i386:364 comp.unix.xenix:7496
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!gatech!mcnc!decvax!shlump.nac.dec.com!took.dec.com!mattioli
From: mattioli@took.dec.com
Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386,comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: SCO MicroSoft C Compiler comments
Message-ID: <4558@shlump.nac.dec.com>
Date: 7 Sep 89 13:18:06 GMT
Sender: news@shlump.nac.dec.com
Followup-To: comp.unix.i386
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 26

In article <123591@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>, plocher%sally@Sun.COM (John Plocher) writes...
>They provide Microsoft C as their default compiler, but they also give you 
>a version of pcc.  When the two are benchmarked, MSC comes out looking faster!
> 
>OK, says I, this does not jive with what I've seen of the MSC compiler - I mean,
>pcc is slow, but not *THAT* slow :-)
> 
>Some sluthing later, it turns out that the version of pcc that SCO provides
>with their 3.2 system is considerably slower than that provided by AT&T's 3.2!
> 
	Does anyone out there know how gcc (the free software foundation's c
compiler) compares with msc and pcc for speed of compilation, speed of compiled
code, size of compiled code, etc? 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

					John Mattioli
				"The Guy with the Bumpy Watch"

(DEC E-NET)	TOOK::MATTIOLI
(UUCP)		{decvax, ucbvax, allegra}!decwrl!TOOK.dec.com!MATTIOLI
(ARPA)		MATTIOLI@TOOK.dec.com
                MATTIOLI%TOOK.dec.com@decwrl.dec.com
(US MAIL)	John Mattioli
		550 King St. LKG2-2/BB9
		Littleton, Ma. 01460