Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!rutgers!ucsd!nosc!helios.ee.lbl.gov!lll-tis!ames!elroy!mahendo!wlbr!scgvaxd!ashtate!dbase!awd
From: awd@dbase.UUCP (Alastair Dallas)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Benchmarking C Compilers (was Re: LightspeedC 3.0 Review (long))
Keywords: Lightspeed C, gcc, Dhrystones
Message-ID: <422@dbase.UUCP>
Date: 22 Jul 88 16:34:48 GMT
References: <76000259@p.cs.uiuc.edu> <4990@husc6.harvard.edu> <3133@Portia.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Ashton Tate Development Center Glendale Cal.
Lines: 21


I happen to know one of the authors of gcc.  My impression of his skill is
such that I believe the ridiculously high numbers quoted for its performance.
As for LightspeedC, it's obvious from the documentation that Think's main
claim for their compiler is speed of compilation, not execution.  I have 
always assumed that LSC's output was slightly larger and slightly slower
than optimal.  Time-critical stuff should be in assembler anyway.

Programming on a Mac for a Mac is such a difficult proposition, I think the
ideal development environment would use LSC's approach: optimize for a very
fast compile-link-run-edit cycle so that the programmer is constantly in
touch with the "feel" of the running program.  If you stick to standard,
portable C, you can easily (so say those who have done it) port to MPW,
which generates somewhat tighter code (again, so I'm told).

By the way, I *still* haven't gotten 3.0.  I called Symantec and they said
there's no mistake; it'll be here "soon."  Soon means the day after the 
retail channel is completely filled, I guess.  <grumble, grumble>.
Calm down, Rich--I _like_ LightspeedC; I'd just _like_ to have it in hand.

/alastair/