Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!princeton!idacrd!mac From: mac@idacrd.UUCP (Bob McGwier) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.lang.c Subject: Re: MSC 4.0 -> MSC 5.0 conversion experiences Message-ID: <353@idacrd.UUCP> Date: Mon, 7-Dec-87 15:21:25 EST Article-I.D.: idacrd.353 Posted: Mon Dec 7 15:21:25 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 12-Dec-87 15:03:29 EST References: <2779@zeus.TEK.COM> Organization: idacrd, princeton, nj Lines: 33 Xref: mnetor comp.sys.ibm.pc:10902 comp.lang.c:5780 in article <2779@zeus.TEK.COM>, bobr@zeus.TEK.COM (Robert Reed) says: > Xref: idacrd comp.sys.ibm.pc:10459 comp.lang.c:5528 > > Well, I've used my new copy of MSC 5.0 to recompile my hacked up version of > microEmacs, (along with several other utilities) and the only trouble I got > was some warning that I had conditionals nested too deeply for the debug > version. I was quite relieved after reading some of the stories posted here. > -- > Robert Reed I also have been able to compile u-Emacs 3.9 with no pain after I had expunged some of the garbage in the version before I put it through 4.0. I also have written and maintain a very large satellite tracking package with graphics, data base manipulation, much floating point, etc. That all compiled after changing a few memcpy's to memmove's and the graphics routines supplied do a better job, faster than those I had cobbled together. The code is about 10-15% faster (much faster in math but I am giving you the average) so I should be MUCH happier, right???? Wrong. I have a friend, Phil Karn. He has written quite a few routines that make much use of the many of the things that "C" should be good at. DES, networking code, etc. First compiled with MSC 5.0 with every option in the book turned on, and then compiled with Aztec 4.10a with NO options turned, he and then I compared run times and sizes. We found the Aztec code to be consistently 20%-30% faster and smaller (here variance was larger but nevertheless always smaller). No one every likes to admit "their" compiler is not the greatest and best. But . . . . Bob