Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!samsung!uunet!mcsun!cernvax!chx400!bernina!bernina!neeri From: neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Ulrich Neeracher) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer Subject: Re: Think, MPW, AND gcc Message-ID: Date: 26 Jun 91 09:52:23 GMT References: <1991Jun25.181936.29476@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> <1991Jun26.004523.23230@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Sender: news@bernina.ethz.ch (USENET News System) Organization: Integrated Systems Laboratory, ETH, Zurich Lines: 29 In-Reply-To: dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu's message of 26 Jun 91 00:45:23 GMT Nntp-Posting-Host: etzj-gw In article <1991Jun26.004523.23230@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> 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. Actually, I believe it runs with somewhat less. The interesting thing is that memory usage doesn't seem to grow as quickly as for MPW C. gcc was able to compile a particularly nasty file that MPW C couldn't do in the available memory (Imagine the C code generated from a flex file with 450 looong rules). >2) The code produced is about 10% faster, around the same size. Except for multiplications with constants, for which MPW C generates code that is both faster and smaller. I found the speed difference not that significant, but then I use a lot of pointers and not very tight loops. The similiarities of MPW and GCC code led me to conclude that MPW C code quality is generally underestimated, fiven gcc's reputation. Matthias ---- Matthias Neeracher neeri@iis.ethz.ch "These days, though, you have to be pretty technical before you can even aspire to crudeness." -- William Gibson, _Johnny Mnemonic_