Path: utzoo!utgpu!cunews!bnrgate!bwdls58!mlord
From: mlord@bwdls58.bnr.ca (Mark Lord)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms.programmer
Subject: Re: Borland C++ bug and impressions
Message-ID: <5972@bwdls58.bnr.ca>
Date: 8 Mar 91 14:16:40 GMT
References: <1991Mar4.144002.4355@informix.com> <502b302b.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM>
Sender: mlord@bwdls58.bnr.ca
Reply-To: mlord@bwdls58.bnr.ca (Mark Lord)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Lines: 18

In article <502b302b.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> ced@apollo.HP.COM (Carl Davidson) writes:
<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++.
<> 
<Could the difference in size be due to the optimizer unrolling loops, etc.?

Differences like these are almost always due to the varying implementations
and packaging of the library routines.  As such, the larger your program gets,
the less significance this will have.
-- 
 ___Mark S. Lord__________________________________________
| ..uunet!bnrgate!mlord%bmerh724 | Climb Free Or Die (NH) |
| MLORD@BNR.CA   Ottawa, Ontario | Personal views only.   |
|________________________________|________________________|