quote:Original post by 255 If MSVC and GCC are about as good then why prefer the expensive one?
because they have a very good ide.
MS opened the VSIP package a couple of months ago. This is an SDK that lets you add support for alternative compilers and languages to the VS.NET IDE. Maybe someone should write a VSIP package that supports GCC?
You can''t make the package open source, though, since the license prevents that. But as long as you are shelling out to gcc.exe instead of linking the GCC source into the package, that shouldn''t be a problem, should it?
quote:Original post by Cypher-PT I find all these posts a bit hard to belive, i allways though of VC as the second best compiler available, the intel being the better one.
I''ve always heard the exact opposite. That the latest MS compiler edges out the latest Intel compiler. Results probably vary depending upon the application and the hardware.
quote:Original post by 255 If MSVC and GCC are about as good then why prefer the expensive one?
Umm... gcc is just a compiler. MSVC is a compiler, a ton of libraries, half of which you may never even try, the best IDE available in most peoples opinion, extensive documentation, resource editing, updates and support, yadda yadda yadda... need I go on?
I think you have to qualify exactly what version of gcc you''re talking about when you start comparing compiler reputations. A lot of the rap GCC got was from when 2.7.x was getting really long in the tooth while other compilers were advancing. MSVC 6 is 5 years old, and I think the optimization level is only up to, what, Pentium Pro? GCC 2.95 and 3.2, 3.3 are all much newer.
quote:Original post by Yann L Actually my engine is a little faster when compiled with GCC 3.3 than with MSVC++ 2003 (release mode). Not very much, perhaps 1 or 2%, but still. And it''s mostly floating point. I guess it really depends on the specific piece of code, but GCC is definitely not bad.
Edit: Ah no, correction: it was GCC 3.2 under Windows.
What were the compiler flags? Both gcc & cl need a bunch of flags to turn on mmx/sse/sse2/3dnow
- The trade-off between price and quality does not exist in Japan. Rather, the idea that high quality brings on cost reduction is widely accepted.-- Tajima & Matsubara
For the record, I think that when people care more about 1% speed gains than the ability to write and compile standards-compliant, portable code, they are severely misdirected.
MSVC 6 is horrible when it comes to standards-compliance, and it''s teaching people a lot of bad habits. I think the great tragedy of this thread is that people are still USING and RECOMMENDING this compiler.
Seriously, it''s a bad thing that''s now in the past. Try as hard as you can to forget MSVC 6 and all it taught you. Version 7 is *much* improved in every category, including your precious optimization. Oh, and it compiles some standards-compliant code! Whoa!
As for IDEs, MSVC''s editor is only acceptable if you''ve never used a superior one (vi or emacs, probably others). In any case, you should try to not be dependant on the IDE. As far as debugging capabilities, Visual Studio is excellent. I''m not knocking the IDE, it''s very good, but I''m efficient with a superior editor so it''s a non-issue for me.
And then there''s the issue of how you shouldn''t use just one compiler if you can help it at all. This isn''t something where you have to choose one or the other, GCC and MSVC are both appropriate in certain situations.
gcc 3.3.2 is building code at the speed of VCPP.NET (non-2003). Intel C is faster than both microsoft and gnu compilers, but it builds worse template-code.
our new version has many new and good features. sadly, the good ones are not new and the new ones are not good