Author: martin fierz
Date: 16:58:40 03/15/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 15, 2002 at 19:33:00, David Rasmussen wrote: >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 for me, as for most here i guess, speed is what is important. if version 7 produces no faster code than version 6 i'm not interested. aloha martin
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.