It seems that gcc it's slow to compile, make big exes and they are poorly optimized.Yes to first (but it's improved a lot with GCC4), yes to second (but only win32, MinGW32 linker's fault), and the third, YMMV.
I know you use mingw to improve performace, but i wonder if anyone have tried to compile it with other compilers...AFAIK it's not used to improve performance, it's used because it's the most common and portable opensource compiler.
i wonder if anyone have tried to compile it with other compilers...Yes, Sam got it working with MSVC, but I don't know if he made patches or if the patches are applied on SVN.
I know you use mingw to improve performace, but i wonder if anyone have tried to compile it with other compilers...
antigrain benchmark gcc is 4/5 times slower
GCC generated executables are not slower than MSVS's nor DM's.Hey,
I 'd like to see some facts please.
I can tell you it's 3 times faster but if I don't show you the facts, it's not worth anything...
Do you have any references for this statement, because I can't find any good test comparisons?
I've done several test with wxwidgets and other libs (f.e. antigrain) to test compiler performances. It seems that gcc it's slow to compile, make big exes and they are poorly optimized. For example on antigrain benchmark gcc is 4/5 times slower than dmc and vc++... I know you use mingw to improve performace, but i wonder if anyone have tried to compile it with other compilers...
This is just my two euro cents of wisdom.And it's perfectly true :)
http://biolpc22.york.ac.uk/wx/wxhatch/wxMSW_Compiler_choice.html <-- a quite old test with wxwidgetsI have to say that those wxWidgets benchmarks are true, I've tested myself, and DMars is 20x times faster than GCC3 in compilation time. YMMV.
There are many other example. You can try it by yourself... Where can i find an unofficial vc or dm build of C::B? :)
http://www.osnews.com/img/5602/results.jpg <-- watch this benchmark about math
http://biolpc22.york.ac.uk/wx/wxhatch/wxMSW_Compiler_choice.html <-- a quite old test with wxwidgets
There are many other example. You can try it by yourself... Where can i find an unofficial vc or dm build of C::B? :)
Ask Sam, as I've said above, he got it compiling :D
Anyway, have a look at here (http://forums.codeblocks.org/index.php?topic=1670.0).
It's here: http://forums.codeblocks.org/index.php?topic=2085.0
C::B has been compiled with MSVC and Intel compilers with few one-time changes.
Why didn't C::B developer apply this patches to official distro?
Anyway, have a look at here (http://forums.codeblocks.org/index.php?topic=1670.0).
DM passes 100% of dr. dobbs tests (http://www.cs.clemson.edu/~malloy/projects/ddj2/ddj2.html) :D
http://www.digitalmars.com/changelog.html#new845
ehehhehe :)
It does not matter whether he did or not. Those patches will not be applied.Why didn't C::B developer apply this patches to official distro?I think Sam didn't posted the patches on the tracker. :)
I agree with Lieven here.
Anyway, have a look at here (http://forums.codeblocks.org/index.php?topic=1670.0).
DM passes 100% of dr. dobbs tests (http://www.cs.clemson.edu/~malloy/projects/ddj2/ddj2.html) :D
http://www.digitalmars.com/changelog.html#new845
ehehhehe :)
The GCC version I have tested at that time (3.4.4) passed 2 or 3 more tests :wink:. Imagine version 4.1...... :D
Anyway, I do n ot want to begin a compiler's war :D.
Best wishes,
Michael
Imagine version 4.1...... :D4.1 haves lot's of regressions on Win32, so it's quite the opossite for now.
I think Sam didn't posted the patches on the tracker. :)It does not matter whether he did or not. Those patches will not be applied.
I agree with Lieven here.
It is always funny how people compare new compilers to an old version of GCC......I'd not call it funny. It is actually quite embarassing.
I think that discussing that one compiler or language is better than other, in an IDE that haves multi-compiler support, is only going to hurt.
Nobody doubts that DM compiles a lot faster.
However, as far as those benchmarks are concerned, those are simply hilarious. The floating point math comparison even more than the wxWidgets one.
I think Sam didn't posted the patches on the tracker. :)It does not matter whether he did or not. Those patches will not be applied.
I agree with Lieven here.
It's quite the opossite, what matters is that patches aren't deleted on the tracker, so other people that is interested in doing so can do it by applying them. If they're applied to codebase or not, it's just a matter of convenience to official builds.
The fact that we may reject the patch, does not mean that it is deleted from the patch tracker. The patch will always be there for anyone to try and apply, if he/she needs to.
Anyway, have a look at here (http://forums.codeblocks.org/index.php?topic=1670.0).
DM passes 100% of dr. dobbs tests (http://www.cs.clemson.edu/~malloy/projects/ddj2/ddj2.html) :D
http://www.digitalmars.com/changelog.html#new845
ehehhehe :)
Umm DM isn't on the list (show me where I can't find it)
But even if it could succesfully build in other compilers, we 'd still use GCC. This will never change, no matter what.
Here are the reasons:
- C::B is cross-platform and the only reliable cross-platform compiler available is GCC.
- I don't have MSVS nor have I ever used/seen it. I don't plan to change this now.
- The above point makes clear that even if someone contributed a patch for other compilers to build C::B, it wouldn't be accepted because we couldn't maintain it (been there, done that).
_("some text"
"some more text")
_("some text")
_("some more text")
Most compiling problems under VC are related to the mentionedWhy do these need to be changed? It is perfectly correct to continue a character constant in the next line, be it in a macro argument or not. The code is absolutely valid, it is the MS compiler which does not work properly.Code_("some text"
"some more text")
which needs to becomeCode_("some text")
_("some more text")
Having additional compiler support in external patches instead of the main codebase is a good idea, but AFAIK such patches are made against [...] would need to release a new patch for each new revisionThat is partially true at the present time, only very radical SDK changes will require that.
VC 2005 for example has an option for "C++ analysis", which issues a lot of additional warnings for possible problems [...]To be honest, gcc is already quite pedantic if you turn on all warnings. Personally, I don't think that there are many MS products which are really apt to improve code. DM or Comeau may of course be an entirely different story, but the additional workload would be quite substantial.
Why do these need to be changed? It is perfectly correct to continue a character constant in the next line, be it in a macro argument or not. The code is absolutely valid, it is the MS compiler which does not work properly.
_("some text\
some more text")