Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!uunet!xanth!nic.MR.NET!hal!cwjcc!mailrus!umix!oxtrap!teemc!rphroy!tkacik
From: tkacik@rphroy.UUCP (Tom Tkacik)
Newsgroups: unix-pc.general
Subject: Re: Gcc 1.30 loses in battle with C-TeX 2.21
Message-ID: <4386@rphroy.UUCP>
Date: 10 Nov 88 12:49:46 GMT
References: <443@manta.pha.pa.us>
Reply-To: tkacik@rphroy.UUCP (Tom Tkacik)
Distribution: unix-pc
Organization: GM Research Labs, Warren, MI
Lines: 33

In article <443@manta.pha.pa.us> brant@manta.pha.pa.us (Brant Cheikes) writes:
>I tried putting gcc 1.30 "through its paces" by using it to build the
>latest version of C-TeX (2.21); the results aren't good.  The gcc I'm
>didn't work right.  Leaving the -O flag off gcc's command line
>produced a proper tangle, but one that was 17% larger than that
>produced by the stock compiler WITH optimization.  Similar results
>
>So right now I don't see the benefit of gcc.  As long as its optimizer
>is broken, the stock cc wins.  I should point out that the
>dysfunctional optimized gcc-produced executable for triptex was about
>15% SMALLER than the stock-cc optimized version.  And it did the wrong
>thing much faster than the stock-cc version did the right thing.
>-- 
>Brant Cheikes

That's interesting.  I have version gcc-1.28.  On this version, it appears
that without optimization, it generates bad code.  But with optimization
turned on it works just fine (so far, fingers crossed :-)).  And the code
size is smaller than with the stock pcc.  With opimization turned on,
the code is smaller than for pcc, while when it is turned off, as Brant
noticed, the code size is larger.  But that's what the GCC manual says
will happen.

I am just glad that the one I have has a working optimizer.  I do not really
care if it does not work without it,  I will just use pcc for that.

Does anyone have a version of GCC running on a 3b1 that works both
with the optimizer, without it?

---
Tom Tkacik
GM Research Labs,  Warren MI
{umix, uunet!edsews}!rphroy!megatron!tkacik