tjr@cbnewsc.att.com (thomas.j.roberts) (01/10/91)
From article <1991Jan9.170423.24965@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>, by rschmidt@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (roy schmidt): > > I didn't do a runoff between the two compilers (TC 2.0 and TC++) for > compilation speed. IMHO, I think this would splitting hairs. The more > important points are adherence to ANSI C, library support, and code > optimization. Saving even one minute in compile time is just not heart- > stirring for me :-). Boy might you be in for a surprise! In my experience (AT&T 6300 - 8 MHz 8086, 640K RAM, 1MB Expanded mem), TC++ compiling a C program is comparable in speed (~10% slower) to TC 2.0. TC++ Compiling a comparable C++ program is several times slower. In fact, if you have no EMS, C++ compilations can take TEN TIMES as long. C++ is clearly a memory hog: Without EMS, 2000 lines of C++ starts TC 1.0 swapping (and you often #include 1000-1500 lines of headers!). Also, tcc seems to be somewhat faster than tc, and seems to require less memory as well; the environment supplied by tc is convenient for small or medium programs (assuming project-file "make" is good enough for your project; i.e. only .c and .cpp files). I STRONGLY recommend at least 1 Mb of EMS for TC++; 2 Mb does not seem to make much difference. If you have an 80386, extended memory is just as good. Tom Roberts att!ihlpl!tjrob TJROB@IHLPL.ATT.COM