Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!apple!keith
From: keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: MPW 3 - why bother?
Message-ID: <48079@apple.Apple.COM>
Date: 14 Jan 91 23:21:41 GMT
References: <1991Jan10.222325.2753@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au> <47967@apple.Apple.COM> <2$q6h2.y[6@smurf.sub.org>
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA
Lines: 24

In article <2$q6h2.y[6@smurf.sub.org> urlichs@smurf.sub.org (Matthias Urlichs) writes:
>In comp.sys.mac.programmer, article <47967@apple.Apple.COM>,
>  keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) writes:
>< 
>< The 3.x compiler is also better than 2.0.2 with regard to code generation
>< and error detection. 
>
>... "more optimized" is relative. Compared to 2.0.2, you may be right.
>Compared to gcc, however...

Could you finish that sentence? I'm eager to hear what experiences people
have had with the MPW version of gnu C. I posted a little while ago that
my own experiences included reducing an 83K program by only a single K or
so. Given that gnu C takes about 3 times as long as MPW C to compile, this
doesn't seem worth it to me. (Perhaps the resulting 81K program was also
optimized for speed, which could explain why it wasn't vastly smaller than
the MPW C version).

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Rollin  ---  Apple Computer, Inc.  ---  Developer Technical Support
INTERNET: keith@apple.com
    UUCP: {decwrl, hoptoad, nsc, sun, amdahl}!apple!keith
"Argue for your Apple, and sure enough, it's yours" - Keith Rollin, Contusions