plocher%sally@Sun.COM (John Plocher) (08/26/89)
>> If it going to be compiled with MSC that it's got to go through >> the 286/386 emulator > >I knew that (on uport, at least) an emlulator was used to run 286 binaries >of any type. But is an emulator used for 386 code? Looking at the new SCO 3.2 system I'd be cautious: They provide Microsoft C as their default compiler, but they also give you a version of pcc. When the two are benchmarked, MSC comes out looking faster! OK, says I, this does not jive with what I've seen of the MSC compiler - I mean, pcc is slow, but not *THAT* slow :-) Some sluthing later, it turns out that the version of pcc that SCO provides with their 3.2 system is considerably slower than that provided by AT&T's 3.2! I don't know if SCO deliberately crippled their version of pcc in order to make MSC look better, or if AT&T is shipping a different version, but the numbers I get from Microport's CC are in the same range as the ATT 3.2 CC, and both are better than SCO's pcc :-) Since it seems that the SCO version of MSC produces 286 code with 32 bit addresses, I can see where Bob P made his comment about an emulator, but the code is really running in the 386 world. If you use the 286 flag you can generate 286 executables which DO run under the 286 emulator, but that is not the default. Just to be fair, the SCO MSC compiler is the only one that I know of that can be told to produce DOS, 286 Unix, 386 Unix, 286 Xenix, 386 Xenix, and OS/2 executables - they even include the OS/2 libraries! Plus, they provide CodeView under Unix! It only works with the x.out files generated by MSC, so it has some limitations, but it is MUCH better than sdb! -John Plocher
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (08/28/89)
Before I bought Xenix for my home machine I got copies of Xenix/386, ix/386 and MicroPort. The Xenix compiler was best in overall speed and did not have any internal failures. Both MP and ix had some cases in which the C compiler would generate code which the assembler couldn't handle, using registers not in the 386 (R10 and R11 are PDP-11). Trying later versions I find that the MSC compiler still produces better code by a small margin, although not all you might be led to believe from the ads ;-) I have been led to believe by some ix/386 ads and hype at shows that they have enhanced the compiler and that what they ship is a good bit better than the original port. If this is true, then SCO may be shipping the original port. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon
mattioli@took.dec.com (09/07/89)
In article <123591@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>, plocher%sally@Sun.COM (John Plocher) writes... >They provide Microsoft C as their default compiler, but they also give you >a version of pcc. When the two are benchmarked, MSC comes out looking faster! > >OK, says I, this does not jive with what I've seen of the MSC compiler - I mean, >pcc is slow, but not *THAT* slow :-) > >Some sluthing later, it turns out that the version of pcc that SCO provides >with their 3.2 system is considerably slower than that provided by AT&T's 3.2! > Does anyone out there know how gcc (the free software foundation's c compiler) compares with msc and pcc for speed of compilation, speed of compiled code, size of compiled code, etc? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John Mattioli "The Guy with the Bumpy Watch" (DEC E-NET) TOOK::MATTIOLI (UUCP) {decvax, ucbvax, allegra}!decwrl!TOOK.dec.com!MATTIOLI (ARPA) MATTIOLI@TOOK.dec.com MATTIOLI%TOOK.dec.com@decwrl.dec.com (US MAIL) John Mattioli 550 King St. LKG2-2/BB9 Littleton, Ma. 01460