Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!columbia!rutgers!sri-spam!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!CORY.BERKELEY.EDU!dillon
From: dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon)
Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga
Subject: Re: C compiler comparison
Message-ID: <8610021606.AA18976@cory.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Thu, 2-Oct-86 12:06:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: cory.8610021606.AA18976
Posted: Thu Oct  2 12:06:00 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 4-Oct-86 06:38:50 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 29


	Manx code is smaller due to the fact that it defaults to 16-bit ints.
If you use it in a comparable mode (+l option for 32-bit ints), I think
Lattice wins.  This, by the way, is why Manx code is usually a *little*
faster.  Lattice bungled their library for 3.03 and below, and thus a lot
is generally included if you reference even supposedly short routines.

	However, if you do not use Lattice's current library (for instance, 
my SHELL and the utilities I posted use my own library), the difference in
executable sizes is negligible.

	Lattice's 3.04 library is supposedly much improved and no longer
causes these huge executables.

----
	What I don't like about Manx is the fact that they decided not to
use the Amiga's standard for object modules, libraries, etc... which causes
headaches.  the new linker, BLINK, is quite a bit faster than Manx's
linker anyway.

	Talking to Jay Denebeim (sysop for the BBS w/carries Blink), Lattice's
3.04 compiler will have PC relative addressing modes for calls and jumps, and
relative addressing through an address register for static/global variables.
He pointed out that this would mean that I could make my shell and any other
program re-entrant without any problem.  This will also, incidently, probably
make the code more compact than Manx as Lattice already has some great
optimization hacks in the compiler.

					-Matt