Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!endor!stew
From: stew@endor.harvard.edu (Stew Rubenstein)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Compiler efficiency
Message-ID: <3205@husc6.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 13-Nov-87 21:28:00 EST
Article-I.D.: husc6.3205
Posted: Fri Nov 13 21:28:00 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 15-Nov-87 11:30:18 EST
References: <3987@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <304@fairlight.oz> <1730@pdn.UUCP> <4285@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU>
Sender: news@husc6.UUCP
Reply-To: stew@endor.UUCP (Stew Rubenstein)
Organization: Aiken Computation Lab Harvard, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 22

In article <4285@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU> borton@net1.UUCP (Chris Borton) writes:
>Thank you Alan for the description of [in]efficient 68000 code generation.
>
>I am curious to hear 'expert' opinions on the code generated by LightspeedC,
>MPW C, LS Pascal, and MPW Pascal.  I personally am most familiar with LS C
>through TMON, and often wonder if a certain construct is really necessary :-).

I second Alan's comments.  I have used both LightspeedC and MPW C
extensively.  MPW C generally produces better code than LightspeedC,
mostly because it automatically puts things in registers.  On the other
hand, since ints are 32 bits in MPW C, it produces a whole lot of
unnecessary EXT instructions, particularly when working with Mac
toolbox calls, most of which work with 16 bit INTEGERs.  Liberal
use of the "register" storage class in LightspeedC produces code
which is nearly as good as MPW.

Both of them are crummy.

Stew Rubenstein
Cambridge Scientific Computing, Inc.
UUCPnet:    seismo!harvard!rubenstein            CompuServe: 76525,421
Internet:   rubenstein@harvard.harvard.edu       MCIMail:    CSC