Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!jwhitnell
From: jwhitnell@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Knowing Machine Code
Message-ID: <6541@cup.portal.com>
Date: 15 Jun 88 18:29:02 GMT
References: <13735@comp.vuw.ac.nz> <104700032@uiucdcsp>
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Lines: 20
XPortal-User-Id: 1.1001.3098


  Rich Siegel writes...
|        Call me stupid, but I fail to see why you need two compilers. Why
|not just have an extremely fast compiler that generates better code
|than the competing compilers *AND* is FASTER than it's previous version?

Sure, know of one?  I don' think LSC qualifies, although the new version
is suppose to be faster then the previous version (I'm still waiting
for my upgrade, the check (and why no plastic?) went out yesterday),
the code generated is adequate but not what I'd call production quality.
I'll use it becuase otherwise it's the best compiler for the Mac (or any
computer I've used),  but I still want an optimizer in 4.0.  BTW, unless
Apple seriously broke the compiler they bought from GreenHills, MPW C
should generate much better code the LSC.  It's not faster because it
uses 32 bit ints rather then 16-bit like LSC.

--
Jerry Whitnell
jwhitnell@cup.portal.com
..!sun!cup.portal.com!jwhitnell