Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!pacbell!ames!claris!apple!shebanow
From: shebanow@Apple.COM (Andrew Shebanow)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: LightspeedC 3.0 Review (long)
Message-ID: <14457@apple.Apple.COM>
Date: 22 Jul 88 01:25:49 GMT
References: <7215@cup.portal.com> <76000259@p.cs.uiuc.edu> <14606@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>
Reply-To: shebanow@apple.apple.com.UUCP (Andrew Shebanow)
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA
Lines: 27

It is extremely unfair to compare Lightspeed C 2.0 results on these
benchmarks with the gcc compiler on a Sun 3/50: LSC 2.0 did not support
68020/68881 code generation, which explains the difference in
benchmark results. LightspeedC 3.0 now supports these options, so
the results should be markedly better.

MPW 2.0's C compiler is based on Green Hills' gcc compiler, the same
one you quoted for your benchmark (I think you meant this one, and not
the Gnu one, which is also called gcc). This compiler does most of
the advanced optimizations you here about on mainframe compilers.

As you might expect, the Sun 3/50 and the Mac II get almost exactly
the same numbers when run with the same compiler. Considering that
MPW C has been available for quite some time, it is not reasonable to
say that optimizing C compilers will show up someday: they've been here
for more than a year.

Have fun,

Andrew Shebanow
Macintosh Developer Tech Support
Apple Computers

PS: never, ever believe any benchmark results.

-- Disclaimer: these opinions are my own: Apple Computer is not responsible,
and neither am I. --