Developer forums (C::B DEVELOPMENT STRICTLY!) > Development
C::B with DM or vc++?
sethjackson:
--- Quote from: Trikko on February 23, 2006, 05:17:19 pm ---
--- Quote from: Michael on February 23, 2006, 05:05:57 pm ---
Anyway, have a look at here.
--- End quote ---
DM passes 100% of dr. dobbs tests :D
http://www.digitalmars.com/changelog.html#new845
ehehhehe :)
--- End quote ---
Umm DM isn't on the list (show me where I can't find it) and guess what that was done in November 2003. The GCC proposed candidate passed 99.11%, and the test (what they testing I can't even tell) was done 2 years ago. :P Hmm I think GCC is waaaay better now.....
EDIT:
Oh and BTW the proposed GCC candidate passed more of the "test" than M$ VC...... :lol:
Have a look here like Michael said.
http://cmeerw.org/prog/freecpp/
thomas:
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.
--- Quote from: Takeshi Miya on February 23, 2006, 05:26:15 pm ---
--- Quote from: Trikko on February 23, 2006, 05:21:20 pm ---Why didn't C::B developer apply this patches to official distro?
--- End quote ---
I think Sam didn't posted the patches on the tracker. :)
I agree with Lieven here.
--- End quote ---
It does not matter whether he did or not. Those patches will not be applied.
Nevertheless, if you believe that you have to compile using MSVC, then feel free to do that. However, if you get strange errors like Sam is getting, then don't come here and complain... :)
Michael:
--- Quote from: Trikko on February 23, 2006, 05:17:19 pm ---
--- Quote from: Michael on February 23, 2006, 05:05:57 pm ---
Anyway, have a look at here.
--- End quote ---
DM passes 100% of dr. dobbs tests :D
http://www.digitalmars.com/changelog.html#new845
ehehhehe :)
--- End quote ---
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
sethjackson:
--- Quote from: Michael on February 23, 2006, 05:43:51 pm ---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
--- End quote ---
We have almost have a few already (in other threads) I think...... :lol: It is always funny how people compare new compilers to an old version of GCC......
takeshimiya:
--- Quote from: Michael on February 23, 2006, 05:43:51 pm ---Imagine version 4.1...... :D
--- End quote ---
4.1 haves lot's of regressions on Win32, so it's quite the opossite for now.
--- Quote from: thomas on February 23, 2006, 05:40:04 pm ---
--- Quote from: Takeshi Miya on February 23, 2006, 05:26:15 pm ---I think Sam didn't posted the patches on the tracker. :)
I agree with Lieven here.
--- End quote ---
It does not matter whether he did or not. Those patches will not be applied.
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version