Author: David Rasmussen
Date: 16:33:00 03/15/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 15, 2002 at 14:52:24, martin fierz wrote: >On March 15, 2002 at 10:24:34, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On March 15, 2002 at 00:54:23, martin fierz wrote: >> >>>aloha >>> >>>i think visual C.net is shipping now - has anybody already tested if the >>>compiler has improved over version 6.0? >>> >>>cheers >>> martin >> >>yes visual c++ NET 7.0 is a joke for C anyway. >> >>In a database server to web conversion tool i compiled conversion >>from float to int already gets buggy when -O2 is used, >>with debug info it goes ok. >> >>This compiler is a joke everywhere. First of all looks of the interface, >>i do not like it. Secondly there are major bugs in creating projects, >>no way to create a project which you then can easily debug. >> >>Converting projects from msvc 6.0 goes ok and debugging them too. >> >>The real problem is the major bugs in the compiler. I don't know who wrote it, >>but it's a beginner who wrote it. Probably C/C++ compiler has no big >>priority anymore within visual c++ and they might have put their best >>man on the joke language C#, which is an obvious attempt to keep people >>away from getting cross platform in the future, after the successfull >>attempt of JAVA from SUN in this direction. >> >>When i compile diep with 7.0 i can't express very well what i feel when >>i see its output. Loads of eval code gets wrong compiled, loads of >>patterns give unexpected results back, even though it is very neatly >>coded code with pointers. >> >>Again the same problem arises which weirdly is in nearly all compilers >>that are tricked to do better on the specbenches: allocate some >>2 dimensional arrays from your own datatypes. then keep reusing 2 >>variables to loop through all those arrays. >> >>It simply creates wrong code here. Amazingly it doesn't crash. >> >>Really pathetic is it is impossible to create a simple project which >>can get debugged without modifying loads of options. >> >>Designers of the user interface must be shipped back to school too. They >>are using Internet Explorer look and feel, something which i do not like. >> >>Now about speed of the compiler. It generates 2% slower code than >>visual c++ 6.0 sp4 with processor pack. >> >>When i realized this I have thrown the compiler out of my window of course, >>for a compiler which creates bugs in my program i have no respect, a >>compiler which generates slower code AND bugs, that's really too much >>for me. >> >>Best regards, >>Vincent > > >oh, that sounds really terrible... so i guess we'll have to wait for 7.1 or >something... i was also afraid that microsoft would work more on their .net >attempt to kill java and on C# than on the C compiler, but i would not have >imagined that it would actually get worse! but then, what do you expect from >microsoft :-) > >aloha > martin Don't take Vincents word for it. My code is 100% ANSI/ISO-compliant C++, and it works fine in VC++ 7. And the code is about 30% faster than gcc (as usual). I am not saying this compiler is perfect. In fact I found a compiler bug in it. But I also found compiler bugs in gcc 2.96 and 3.0.x. For compliance, the gcc 3.0.x, and esp. 3.1 when it is released, are best. But many compliant programs compile wihtout problems on VC 7. Many many more than with VC 6. VC 6 isn't compliant with anything. It fails to compile even the simplest compliant C++ code. So if compliance and portability is important (and speed) try MSVC 7. MSVC 6 doesnt fill this bill at least. /David
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.