On Sat, 7 Mar 2009, Steven Hirsch wrote:

> lyricalnanoha wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Mar 2009, apple2freak{at}gmail.com wrote:
>> 
>>> Why would Intel make a C/C++ compiler for their hardware if the GNU
>>> compiler was already good enough?  Again, common sense dictates that
>>> they would only produce one if it could significantly outperform the
>>> GNU compiler, which it generally does.
>> 
>> That's because GCC is a sluggish, bloated mess.
>
> We use gcc/g++ to build high-performance applications for VLSI design 
> verification.  The Intel compiler was not enough fast to justify the price, 
> FWIW.
>
> What is _that_ comment based upon?
>

It's really true of ALL the Gnu stuff.  It might be effective at doing its 
job but it's slow and bloated.

It's the main reason I prefer the BSD tools, although they haven't yet 
managed to cough up a gcc replacement that works well enough for real use. 
When I code for DOS, however, I avoid using GCC unless I really have no 
other choice (this is why a lot of my stuff has been 16-bit even though it 
hasn't had to be).

-uso.
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32