Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!world!iecc!compilers-sender From: moss@cs.umass.edu Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: GCC vs. Turbo C performance Keywords: GCC, performance Message-ID: Date: 1 Dec 90 18:15:28 GMT References: <19400004@inmet> Sender: compilers-sender@iecc.cambridge.ma.us Reply-To: moss@cs.umass.edu Organization: Compilers Central Lines: 22 Approved: compilers@iecc.cambridge.ma.us In-Reply-To: stt@inmet.inmet.com's message of 28 Nov 90 19:55:00 GMT >>>>> On 28 Nov 90 19:55:00 GMT, stt@inmet.inmet.com said: Taft> Re: time spent in GCC's "parse" phase. Taft> ... Turbo C and Think C probably get their speed by doing most of the Taft> front-end processing while the user is typing in the program. I don't think so. The compiler runs separately from the editor and really does read all the source file(s) from disk. I think they get most of their speed by hand coding a lot of crucial routines in assembly, and by focusing on speed in designing their compilers. My guess is that they feel it is a market very sensitive to this issue, and hence worth the effort. (It's also worth the effort because of the profit and volume.) -- J. Eliot B. Moss, Assistant Professor Department of Computer and Information Science Lederle Graduate Research Center University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003 (413) 545-4206; Moss@cs.umass.edu -- Send compilers articles to compilers@iecc.cambridge.ma.us or {ima | spdcc | world}!iecc!compilers. Meta-mail to compilers-request. Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com