Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!steinmetz!davidsen
From: davidsen@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP (William E. Davidsen Jr)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Turbo C vs. Microsoft
Message-ID: <8201@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP>
Date: 14 Dec 87 16:44:39 GMT
References: <4516@teddy.UUCP>
Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen)
Organization: General Electric CRD, Schenectady, NY
Lines: 21

I think the recent benchmarks are reasonably representative of the state
of C compilers today. I rarely use QC, because all of the things I want
to do require options, libraries, etc. I like MSC because I have a
minimum number of surprizes porting UNIX code to the segmented
archetecture. 

I *believe* that the size of MSC routine is not due to the object size,
but to the size of the routine in the library. It seems that some
compromise between link time and exe size was made. If many routines are
compiled into one object the load time will be better due to fewer
library searches, while separate compilation leads to smaller exes but
longer link time.

Some day when I have time I'll pull apart the library source, recompile
them in the smallest blocks I can, and see what it does for the exe
size.

-- 
	bill davidsen		(wedu@ge-crd.arpa)
  {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me