Discussion:
review of gcc in dr. dobbs, oct ed.
(too old to reply)
Burgess Meredith
2003-10-15 16:14:24 UTC
Permalink
Review of 7 c compilers in dr. dobbs, they say
about gcc:

'GCC has the best language support, which is
commensurate with its having the widest
collaboration of any open-source (and
probably commercial as well) compiler in the
business. Howeve, this may also account for
its poor efficiency characteristics. On my
tested scenarios, it proved to be the
slowest compiler, and produced the slowest
and fattest code.'

So by being the most 'standard' the trade off
is lower efficiency and slowness.
Bob Tennent
2003-10-15 16:48:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Burgess Meredith
Review of 7 c compilers in dr. dobbs, they say
'GCC has the best language support, which is
commensurate with its having the widest
collaboration of any open-source (and
probably commercial as well) compiler in the
business. Howeve, this may also account for
its poor efficiency characteristics. On my
tested scenarios, it proved to be the
slowest compiler, and produced the slowest
and fattest code.'
So by being the most 'standard' the trade off
is lower efficiency and slowness.
I don't have access to the article but there seems to be some confusion
here. What is most impressive about GCC is the variety of architectures
supported. And 'standard' in the context of a compiler refers to how
well it supports the relevant language standard, which shouldn't have
much effect on efficiency of generated code or slowness.

In compilers, one sees a tradeoff between efficiency of generated code
and efficiency of code generation. I would be very surprised if GCC were
worst at both (at any -O setting).
Peter
2003-10-15 18:40:36 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 16:14:24 GMT, "Burgess Meredith"
Post by Burgess Meredith
Review of 7 c compilers in dr. dobbs, they say
'GCC has the best language support, which is
commensurate with its having the widest
collaboration of any open-source (and
probably commercial as well) compiler in the
business. Howeve, this may also account for
its poor efficiency characteristics. On my
tested scenarios, it proved to be the
slowest compiler, and produced the slowest
and fattest code.'
So by being the most 'standard' the trade off
is lower efficiency and slowness.
Assuming that the findings are an appropriate comparison. The key
question is does it compile a small and efficient kernel? That is the
heart of the matter.

So what - hardware is cheap enough.

Again horses for courses.

The whole gcc suite is within the reach of all. An equivalent
commercial suite would be in the five figure range (taking into
account its cross platform capabilities).
Kingbarry2000
2003-10-15 19:12:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 16:14:24 GMT, "Burgess Meredith"
Post by Burgess Meredith
Review of 7 c compilers in dr. dobbs, they say
'GCC has the best language support, which is
commensurate with its having the widest
collaboration of any open-source (and
probably commercial as well) compiler in the
business. Howeve, this may also account for
its poor efficiency characteristics. On my
tested scenarios, it proved to be the
slowest compiler, and produced the slowest
and fattest code.'
So by being the most 'standard' the trade off
is lower efficiency and slowness.
Assuming that the findings are an appropriate comparison. The key
question is does it compile a small and efficient kernel? That is the
heart of the matter.
Bingo! And that answer woul be : No
Post by Peter
So what - hardware is cheap enough.
? Most of the people here would disagree ?
Post by Peter
Again horses for courses.
The whole gcc suite is within the reach of all. An equivalent
commercial suite would be in the five figure range (taking into
account its cross platform capabilities).
--
I work for SUTI, an offshoot of SETI.
( Search for Usenet Terrestrial Intelligence )

Its horses, all the way down.
Peter
2003-10-15 19:53:56 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 19:12:01 GMT, "Kingbarry2000"
Post by Kingbarry2000
Post by Peter
Assuming that the findings are an appropriate comparison. The key
question is does it compile a small and efficient kernel? That is the
heart of the matter.
Bingo! And that answer woul be : No
Not really a problem - see below.
Post by Kingbarry2000
Post by Peter
So what - hardware is cheap enough.
? Most of the people here would disagree ?
Serious users look for security, stability and flexibility.
Efficiency is now secondary, the extra cost of hardware needed to
compensate for lack of effeciency is not significant enough to shun
gcc. Games users may see things differently.
Post by Kingbarry2000
Post by Peter
Again horses for courses.
The whole gcc suite is within the reach of all. An equivalent
commercial suite would be in the five figure range (taking into
account its cross platform capabilities).
<stony silence from kingbarry> </stony silence from king barry>

The lack of a response regarding gcc accessibilty is the most
telling part of his overall response.
Kingbarry2000
2003-10-15 20:10:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 19:12:01 GMT, "Kingbarry2000"
Post by Kingbarry2000
Post by Peter
Assuming that the findings are an appropriate comparison. The key
question is does it compile a small and efficient kernel? That is the
heart of the matter.
Bingo! And that answer woul be : No
Not really a problem - see below.
Post by Kingbarry2000
Post by Peter
So what - hardware is cheap enough.
? Most of the people here would disagree ?
Serious users look for security, stability and flexibility.
Efficiency is now secondary, the extra cost of hardware needed to
compensate for lack of effeciency is not significant enough to shun
gcc. Games users may see things differently.
Post by Kingbarry2000
Post by Peter
Again horses for courses.
The whole gcc suite is within the reach of all. An equivalent
commercial suite would be in the five figure range (taking into
account its cross platform capabilities).
<stony silence from kingbarry> </stony silence from king barry>
The lack of a response regarding gcc accessibilty is the most
telling part of his overall response.
You think I am trying to trash GCC ?
Nothing I said was trashing GCC.
GCC is a great compiler, and I have used it - mostly at IBM.
I have no big chip(s) on my shoulder ( have two pins in my left one from
hockey - but that is another story ) re: Linux, RH, GCC, FSF, whatever.
I am a geek, and software is software. Some good, some bad.
But I use MS / Borland compilers on windows because they are specialized /
targeted at that OS.
--
I work for SUTI, an offshoot of SETI.
( Search for Usenet Terrestrial Intelligence )

Its generics, all the way down.
Russ Lyttle
2003-10-18 14:26:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Burgess Meredith
Review of 7 c compilers in dr. dobbs, they say
'GCC has the best language support, which is
commensurate with its having the widest
collaboration of any open-source (and
probably commercial as well) compiler in the
business. Howeve, this may also account for
its poor efficiency characteristics. On my
tested scenarios, it proved to be the
slowest compiler, and produced the slowest
and fattest code.'
So by being the most 'standard' the trade off
is lower efficiency and slowness.
I noticed that they didn't build for the Power PC or Sparc or Sharc or ...
Just Windows.
--
Russ Lyttle
lyttlecatearthlink.net
at = @
Loading...