Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!orcenl!hbergh
From: hbergh@oracle.nl (Herbert van den Bergh)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.aix
Subject: Re: BASH and GCC
Message-ID: <1264@nlsun1.oracle.nl>
Date: 5 Mar 91 17:14:18 GMT
References: <1274@dkunix9.dk.oracle.com> <2547@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au>
Reply-To: hbergh@oracle.nl (Herbert van den Bergh)
Distribution: comp.unix.aix
Organization: Oracle Europe
Lines: 29

In article <2547@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au> john@chook.ua.oz (John Warburton) writes:
|I would think that if people wanted a good shell across a number of different
|environments, then BASH would be the answer. Also there are a few more options 
|to BASH than ksh can poke a stick at! 
What options are you talking about? Besides, I think it is preferable
to have a good shell which is supported by many vendors on many systems
than to have to port a public domain program to all platforms you use.
If you work only on one platform, and that one doesn't have ksh, start
flaming your vendor now.

|> If anybody has gcc running, does it produce better code (in any way) than
|> xlc -O?
|
|Well that is rather amusing in its own right. We have been told (in Australia)
|that the optimiser for the compiler does not work (hence the OS is not optimised
|code), so the beauty of gcc is made even better as it would most probably
|be the only optimising compiler for the RS6000.
That's nonsense and you should know it, because it's easy to verify
that the optimizer DOES work. There may have been some bugs
in the XLC optimizer, but they will get fixed sooner or later. I
wonder if GCC will ever optimize as smart as the XLC compiler does.
Try for example to compile one of your programs with -qlist, with
and without -O, and look at the difference in size, speed and
generated code. Pretty amazing stuff.

-- 
Herbert van den Bergh,		Email:	hbergh@oracle.nl, hbergh@oracle.com
ORACLE Europe
--