Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!apollo!ced
From: ced@apollo.HP.COM (Carl Davidson)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms.programmer
Subject: Re: Borland C++ bug and impressions
Message-ID: <502b302b.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM>
Date: 4 Mar 91 20:29:00 GMT
References: <1991Mar4.144002.4355@informix.com>
Sender: root@apollo.HP.COM
Lines: 16

From article <1991Mar4.144002.4355@informix.com>, by sdavid@infmx.informix.com (David Sherrick):
> 
> The second thing I noticed (much to my surprise), when I compiled the same
> source code with MSC 6.00 and Borland C++.  The MSC executable was smaller
> than the Borland executable (24k vs 28k) and I had optimization turn OFF 
> in MSC and ON in Borland C++.
> 
> But, being a big Borland fan I am giving them the benefit of the doubt.
> 

Could the difference in size be due to the optimizer unrolling loops, etc.?

Carl Davidson  (508) 256-6600 x4361    | 
The Apollo Systems Divison of          |  It doesn't TAKE all kinds,
The Hewlett-Packard Company            |  there just ARE  all kinds.
DOMAIN: ced@apollo.HP.COM              |