> that was ultrix though, which has two compilers: their cc, and vcc
> the ultrix cc is not pcc
> 
It isn't? Are you sure? I find it highly unlikely that DEC had two 
different compilers...

Anyway, I can simply test:

*compiling pcc from 4.3 Reno on this machine*
olivaw:/u0/ragge/cc >echo "2 9999 ^ 3 6308 ^ / p" | /usr/bin/time ./dc
2
       43.2 real        43.0 user         0.0 sys  

Marginally faster than the Ultrix cc, which probably is due to opts done
after 4.2 was cut, or something. Anyway, it still shows: pcc sucks compared
to gcc.

-- Ragge

> isildur
> 
> On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Anders Magnusson wrote:
> 
> > > pcc also generates fast code. faster than gcc on vax at any rate.. i 
> > > should do a more involved comparison than the little shootout between gcc 
> > > and pcc and ultrix/vax cc that ragge and i did.. though we had machines 
> > > of somewhat different characteristics, but pcc2's code was at least as 
> > > fast as gcc's best optimization. 
> > > 
> > Well, I think you have a bad memory :-)
> > Here's the test again:
> > 
> > ! Running the command:
> > ! % echo "2 9999 ^ 3 6308 ^ / p" | /usr/bin/time ./dc
> > ! 
> > ! gave the following results:
> > ! 
> > ! cc:
> > !        44.7 real        44.4 user         0.0 sys
> > ! 
> > ! vcc:
> > !        51.0 real        50.8 user         0.0 sys  
> > ! 
> > ! gcc:
> > !        31.3 real        31.1 user         0.0 sys  
> > ! 
> > 
> > 
> > This shows that pcc's code is almost 50% _slower_ than the gcc code, 
> > and the DEC C compiler is even worse...
> > 
> > Gcc takes quite a while to compile, but generates rather good code.
> > 
> > There are other problems making the VAXen slow, though.
> > 
> > -- Ragge
> > 
>