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!uxa.cso.uiuc.edu!ml27192
From: ml27192@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mark Lanett)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Think, MPW, AND gcc
Message-ID: <1991Jun26.015124.1186@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 26 Jun 91 01:51:24 GMT
References: <1991Jun25.181936.29476@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> <1991Jun26.004523.23230@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Sender: usenet@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 29

dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) writes:

>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.

Also, it requires Asm (it's not a native compiler). It requires the 3.1 headers
because it doesn't understand the #pragma in the 3.2 headers (and apparently
isn't going to learn about them), so using it for system 7 stuff would seem
difficult.

>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
--
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Lanett						mlanett@uiuc.edu
Software Tools Group, NCSA