Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Search:  
Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

BIG "C" compiler comparison thread (Developers)

posted by Rugxulo Homepage, Usono, 05.03.2008, 14:04
(edited by Rugxulo on 05.03.2008, 14:27)

> 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.
I was looking at some asm output from TC++ 1.01 today, and it's seriously not optimized for modern cpus. "inc sp" "inc sp" via speedup option -G instead of "pop ax" (I guess? because 8086 was very slow for "pop", according to HelpPC). Still, it's a good compiler. And, as has been mentioned to me before, small changes like that don't speed up much (although I still say it's worth it, especially if you can automate the process via some text processing, e.g. sed script).

> I don't think that opening the source is important (who would improve
> it?),
I don't care (much), and I may be remembering incorrectly, but they did supposedly at one time plan / hope to release an improved version. Oh well. Strange how FreeDOS is active but some people still think nobody uses DOS. (They've probably moved on to "bigger markets", ugh.)

> the same concerning C99 and C++ support (I don't need them). What
> bugs has library?
Well, most people don't need C99, and C++ is just plain scary to me! So, I don't need 'em. (Even GCC isn't 100% C99 yet, and MSVC has no plans for such last I heard.)

But anyways, I dunno how buggy the library is, didn't mean to imply that. However, FreeDOS / Blair's MD5SUM tool generated incorrect hashes when compiled with Pacific C (vs. OpenWatcom or whatever).

> > 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.

Use it if you like it, but others are faster, more modern, more popular syntax, and less buggy perhaps. There are lots of assemblers out there (unless you're Japheth, heh).

> I don't find the debugger's name dreadful, considering its meaning.

There is no worse name, IMO.

> The IDE is memory hungry (both conventional and XMS) and is slow.
I prefer using a normal text editor anyways and doing a manual compile (or make). But their IDE at least seemed logical and intuitive, IIRC.

Post reply
 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
22049 Postings in 2034 Threads, 396 registered users, 234 users online (0 registered, 234 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum