Mon, 14 Feb 2011 10:01:53 -0800, Walter Bright wrote: > retard wrote: >> Mon, 14 Feb 2011 04:44:43 +0200, so wrote: >> >>>> Unfortunately DMC is always out of the question because the >>>> performance is 10-20 (years) behind competition, fast compilation >>>> won't help it. >>> Can you please give a few links on this? >> >> What kind of proof you need then? Just take some existing piece of code >> with high performance requirements and compile it with dmc. You lose. >> >> http://biolpc22.york.ac.uk/wx/wxhatch/wxMSW_Compiler_choice.html >> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.c++.perfometer/37 > > That link shows dmc winning.
No, it doesn't. In the Fib-50000 test where the optimizations bring largest improvements in wall clock time, g++ 3.3.1, vc++7, bc++ 5.5.1, and icc are all faster with optimized settings. This test is a joke anyway. I wouldn't pick a compiler for video transcoding based on some Fib-10000 results, seriously.
