Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 13:05:14 08/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 19, 2001 at 02:25:52, pavel wrote: >On August 18, 2001 at 19:54:19, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On August 18, 2001 at 03:40:01, Frank Phillips wrote: >> >>>On August 18, 2001 at 03:06:38, pavel wrote: >>> >>>>simple questions, >>>> >>>>whats the best Commercial C++ compilers out there? (in your opinion) >>>>and how good is borland 5.02? >>>> >>>>tnx >>>>pavs. >>> >>>My program (mostly C) is 25-30% faster with MS VC++ (for Windows) than gcc-2.96 >>>under Linux. If I recall correctly Borland under Windows was similar to gcc. >>> >>>MS is best (for speed) but you need to be prepared to spend a lot of money to >>>buy the non-learning version if you want fast executables. >> >>Though results vary from system to system, you might also try the Intel >>compiler. Note that it requires MS VC++ 6.0 or higher, and has no IDE by itself >>(it uses the MS VC++ IDE). >> >>You can do a trial for free. Sometimes there is a good speedup, sometimes not. > > >so there is nothing special about the borland C++ 5.02? >coz I just got it as a present. Cygwin GCC produces binaries of roughly equivalent quality to Borland's compilers. Lots of people like the Borland IDE. I think it is a good platform for a beginner to learn. But for the fastest binaries, it cannot compete with the Professional or Enterprise editions of MS VC++ or the Intel compiler. On the other hand, you can always get someone who has a copy of the faster compilers to do a build for you. If I remember right, you like to do inline assembly. If the majority of your code is in assembly, it really won't matter much what compiler you choose.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.