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!"