Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rochester!ur-tut!tfra
From: tfra@ur-tut.UUCP (Tom Frauenhofer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: C compilers?
Message-ID: <908@ur-tut.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 17-Dec-86 11:16:50 EST
Article-I.D.: ur-tut.908
Posted: Wed Dec 17 11:16:50 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 18-Dec-86 02:11:15 EST
References: <75800002@uiucdcsp> <998@hope.UUCP> <579@sdcc18.ucsd.EDU>
Reply-To: tfra@ur-tut.UUCP (Tom Frauenhofer)
Organization: Univ. of Rochester Computing Center
Lines: 60

[Et tu, line-eater?]

> Re Aztec C: not a bad recommendation.  I have the latest version
> (3.40) and have run a lot of code through it, with no problems.  The
> executables it produces are smaller than many other compilers, and
> it does a reasonably good job at speed optimization.  It is also nice
> to have the library source.

> I have had some trouble with the Aztec debuggers: they do not seem
> to work properly when the console is set to character mode, no echo.
> This is true of the new symbolic debugger as well as the older db.
> Although I haven't used it, my impression from ads/reviews is that
> the Codeview debugger that comes with the new Microsoft C compiler
> (4.00) is superior.  The availability of good debugging tools can
> make a big difference in how much code you can turn out and how fast,
> so this is an important consideration.  Microsoft also has good benchmark
> results.  No library source, though.

>  -Jon Dart

I make use of both AZTEC C (version 3.20) and MS C (Version 4.0).  For a
project my company is working on I had to determine which of the two 
compilers to use.  I ran the dhrystone benchmark on both compilers using
the small and large memory models only (the version of AZTEC we have doesn't
allow the mixed models).  A typical MSC dhrystone was around 1400; a 
typical AZTEC dhrystone was around 3200. Other benchmarks showed similar
results.

Another important result was the size of the object and executable code 
generated by the two compilers.  I compiled abouttwenty different programs
and linked them together, again under the small and large memory models.
Aztec files were typically about 1/2 to 2/3rds the size of MSC files.
This was the same whether we were looking at object or executable files.

One more test that I ran on Aztec was the conversion of object to the
Microsoft .OBJ format using tools provided by Aztec.  While there was a slight
increase in code size (typically less than 100 bytes for an object module)
when compared with MSC it was still smaller.  I also converted the libraries
and used Microsoft's linker to link the stuff together.  The dhrystone results
were a hair slower, but not enough to comment on (maybe 3000 instead of 3200).

Oh, my hardware base was an IBM AT with a 30 meg hard disk, 512K memory,
PC-DOS Version 3.2, running at 8 MHz.

My conclusion was that Aztec gave us more bang for the buck than Microsoft.
I didn't try out either debugger (CodeView or db) but I usually find
debuggers of limited help - What usually works better for me is to let
someone else look at my code (unfortunately, it is accompanied by comments
like stupid mistake or the like- maybe I should use a debugger after 
all :-).  Programs seem to run with little modification under either compiler.

I also have an older rev of Ecosoft C.  If I have a chance, I will try my
tests on it to see what happens.

- Tom Frauenhofer

...!seismo!rochester!ur-tut!tfra

"Aha, Zander Zlaslowych!  You thought you could defeat me, but I still have
 my feet!"