Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.datemas.de!rt.uk.eu.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Rod Pemberton" Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Epic Fail Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 00:41:50 -0400 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 28 Message-ID: References: <2014Apr13.181030@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <27ilk9dvau3o08tmi9ccedohs8j8oujac2@4ax.com> <5cb167bf-1408-42d5-b3e9-4b5084b211d2@googlegroups.com> <9ssml9phf0dqnh6drjve8igb4jsqkitmuj@4ax.com> <7x4n1g9xr0.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <2014Apr26.162421@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <2014Apr27.144619@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: CNsg4fVcCsvs3UaOgZtQCw.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.16 (Linux) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:29923 On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 08:46:19 -0400, Anton Ertl wrote: > "Rod Pemberton" writes: >> On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 10:24:21 -0400, Anton Ertl >> wrote: >>> [...] GCC 1.x was a leader in the performance of the generated code, >>> [...] >> >> So, you're actually claiming that GCC - at some point in time - actually >> outperformed Watcom, or now OpenWatcom, in terms of generated code? > > Sure. E.g., Watcom did not produce code for HP9000/300 (68k-based) > machines. The only game in town was HP's compiler (which was probably > derived from PCC), and GCC (maybe also Green Hills). So GCC > definitely outperformed Watcom on these machines. And when it was > released, the code it produced was significantly faster than that of > HP's compiler; the HP people then worked on it for a year and managed > to get close to the performance of GCC. > Of course, that clarifies your earlier statement which made no constraints as to which platforms GCC was a performance leader. Obviously, if we take x86 into account, GCC was *never* a performance leader. Rod Pemberton