Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!pequod.cso.uiuc.edu!dorner
From: dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Think, MPW, AND gcc
Message-ID: <1991Jun26.004523.23230@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 26 Jun 91 00:45:23 GMT
References: <1991Jun25.181936.29476@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>
Sender: usenet@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News)
Organization: University of Illinois at U-C
Lines: 18

In article <1991Jun25.181936.29476@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) writes:
>In hopes of finding some silverlining in the clouds of MPW, how does the
>speed and size of gcc (the MPW ported version) compare with Think and
>MPW C?

The docs that come with the port indicate several things:

1) The compiler is a pig; 4M to run.
2) The code produced is about 10% faster, around the same size.
3) The compiler is designed as a drop-in replacement for the MPW C compiler;
   it's compatible with supplied libraries, header files, linker, etc.

Or that's what I remember.  I couldn't quite bring myself to use a different
production compiler from my debugging compiler, even though I'm quite fond
of gcc on UNIX.
--
Steve Dorner, U of Illinois Computing Services Office
Internet: s-dorner@uiuc.edu  UUCP: uunet!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!s-dorner