Arkady V.Belousov escreveu:
> For applications, RTL usually is inherent part, so comparing RTLs
> (which also compiled by compilers) together _is_ relevant. On the other
> side, given examples make bias point - you may now enough to bias executable
> size and compare resulting sizes, not ins
>
> How much?
MS VC is 6% "better" than OW, both optimizing for size. OW is not bad,
especially if comparing MSVC with TC, where MSVC is 25% "better".
-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceF
Hi!
19-Янв-2007 15:09 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Japheth) wrote to
freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net:
>> May you show examples? Starting from minimal "void main(){}", then with
>> printf("Hello, world!\n"), then something more complex? With OW 1.6:
J> a "dummy" main and a "hello world" main are utt
Hi Arkady,
[PS: I am still looking for people who can help with
reviewing my 2035c versus 2036 diff report, thanks!]
>> type test1.c
> void main () {}
>> wcl test1.c
>> wcc TEST1.C
>> wlink @__wcl__.lnk
>> type test2.c
> #include
> void main () { printf ("Hello, world!\n"); }
...
> TEST1EXE
Hello Japheth,
>> May you show examples? Starting from minimal "void main(){}", then with
>> printf("Hello, world!\n"), then something more complex? With OW 1.6:
> a "dummy" main and a "hello world" main are utterly irrelevant if you want to
> compare size/speed optimisations (leaving CRT as
>
> May you show examples? Starting from minimal "void main(){}", then with
> printf("Hello, world!\n"), then something more complex? With OW 1.6:
a "dummy" main and a "hello world" main are utterly irrelevant if you want to
compare size/speed optimisations (leaving CRT aside).
A "complex"
Hi!
18-Янв-2007 11:31 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Japheth) wrote to
freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net:
>> Better than watcom? How much better and in which areas?
J> In Open Watcom just the 32bit C(++) compiler and WD are pretty good. The rest
J> is of "mixed" quality.
J> With optimisation on MSVC CL
