Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!dkuug!iesd!iesd.auc.dk!fischer From: fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars P. Fischer) Newsgroups: comp.sys.acorn Subject: Re: is it possible to port GNU-GCC-Compiler to Archimedes running RISC-OS ? Message-ID: Date: 26 Feb 91 19:18:21 GMT References: <1991Feb20.085225.11667@cl.cam.ac.uk> <5309@acorn.co.uk> Sender: news@iesd.auc.dk Distribution: comp Organization: Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Aalborg Lines: 27 In-reply-to: osmith@acorn.co.uk's message of 21 Feb 91 12:22:43 GMT >>>>> On 21 Feb 91 12:22:43 GMT, osmith@acorn.co.uk (Owen Smith) said: Owen> gcc for the ARM might never approach the speed, code size and Owen> reliability of Norcroft on the ARM, On all the architectures I have used, GCC has been very close to other available compilers, or better. GCC version 1.xx have a number of problems with generating efficient code for some RISC architectures due to some unfortunate design decisions and the lack of facilities such as instruction scheduling. This is being addressed in version 2.xx, currently in alpha test. Still, version 1.xx generates as good code as the Sun C compiler on a SPARC. As to reliability, GCC has been more reliable than the system compiler and other commercial compilers for most machines I have used. It is interesting to note that the release note for each version of GCC includes the statement "This release fixes all previously reported bugs". The only problem I can see with GCC for the ARM is the memory usage of GCC. A compiler that use 4 Mbytes (or more) when optimizing might not be a favorite with home computer users. /Lars -- Lars Fischer, fischer@iesd.auc.dk | Beauty is a French phonetic corruption CS Dept., Univ. of Aalborg, DENMARK. | - FZ