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