Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

BIG "C" compiler comparison thread (Developers)

posted by Khusraw, 05.03.2008, 08:01

> Versus Turbo C? Do you know how they compare on code generation?

I'm used to look over the code generated by any compiler I test, so yes, I know. The optimized code is comparable to that of Turbo C (but as you noticed it has some weird flaws, it looks like an unfinished job), plus the compiler can pass the first two arguments in registers and has some alignment options that Turbo C lacks.

> Well, they at one time said they'd release an improved version (open
> source?) and never did. I never really used it, but IIRC, it had some
> weird quirks in its output. Besides, ANSI C only (no C99, no C++, slightly
> buggy library).

I don't think that opening the source is important (who would improve it?), the same concerning C99 and C++ support (I don't need them). What bugs has library?

> Non-standard syntax, no? And used a quite dreadful name for a debugger.
> But at least the IDE was fairly good.

Non-standard syntax, but not so different and logical enough. I don't find the debugger's name dreadful, considering its meaning. The IDE is memory hungry (both conventional and XMS) and is slow.

 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
22049 Postings in 2034 Threads, 396 registered users, 250 users online (0 registered, 250 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum