Author: Ulrich Tuerke
Date: 02:47:46 03/02/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 01, 2003 at 22:21:27, Christophe Theron wrote: >On March 01, 2003 at 17:54:51, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: > >>On March 01, 2003 at 16:52:30, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On March 01, 2003 at 16:38:56, Tanya Deborah wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Hi to all! >>>> >>>>Somebody can please tell me how good is this compiler? >>>> >>>>Somebody here have some experience using this old compiler for chess, or another >>>>game? How good it is? >>> >>> >>> >>>Good, but does not optimize as well as current compilers. >> >>In fact I'd rather say, it doesn't optimize at all. >>Those days, I had looked to the assembler code generated by Turbo-C. It was real >>terrible regarding performance issues. > > > >Maybe we are not talking about the same product. I think Turbo C 2.0 did almost >no optimization (it is easy to recognize, it is the one that does no >color-syntax in the editor). > >Borland C++ 3.1 is able to optimize (it has a dozen optimization options). I'm >talking about the DOS part of the compiler, not the Win3x part (which, >interestingly, is probably not used anymore when its DOS counterpart still is). You're right; i was referring to Turbo C++. Later versions had been renamed to Borland C++ and they did some optimizations. I guess, that Tanya had asked for the older Turbo C++ thing ? Uli
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.