Xref: utzoo comp.windows.ms.programmer:1433 comp.os.msdos.programmer:4070
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!gatech!udel!princeton!phoenix.Princeton.EDU
From: mg@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Michael Golan)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms.programmer,comp.os.msdos.programmer
Subject: Re: Borland C++ vs Microsoft C 5.10
Keywords: windows borland microsoft
Message-ID: <7320@idunno.Princeton.EDU>
Date: 19 Mar 91 18:32:10 GMT
References: <350@intertel.UUCP>
Sender: news@idunno.Princeton.EDU
Followup-To: comp.windows.ms.programmer
Organization: Princeton University
Lines: 23

boyd_m@intertel.UUCP (Mark Boyd) writes:

>The company I work at has a large Windows program.  We just got Borland C++
>and made the necessary conversions and compiled it.  The size differences are
>quite surprising.
>   Microsoft C 5.1 .EXE:  720672 bytes
>       Borland C++ .EXE:  842848 bytes
>The optimization for Microsoft is -Os for space.  The optimization for Borland
>is all but -Z (aliasing).  I'm interested in knowing what everyone else is
>seeing.

Ok guys, anyone care to comment? I always felt that MSC produced shorter code
for any *REAL* program. The above test is not even fair to MS, as MSC6 
produces a little shorter code (3-6% in my large programs). Also, -Os is
not optimal for code size (Despite what the manual say, you can reduce the
code a little more by playing with the options).

Brand new borland.com, are you listening? Prove us wrong or
give us a (slow version) compiler that produces shorter code!


 Michael Golan
 mg@princeton.edu