Path: chuka.playstation.co.uk!news
From: Craig Graham <cgraham@intelligent-group.com>
Newsgroups: scee.yaroze.programming.codewarrior
Subject: Re: C++
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 16:36:24 +0000
Organization: Intelligent Research
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <34F6EB88.D8D6C7F1@intelligent-group.com>
References: <33C346E6.4D88@hotmail.com> <01bc811e$3fcc8020$c793989e@fourny.demon.co.uk> <33D0714F.2D0A@bc.sympatico.ca> <01bc8ef8$1e0f8b20$c793989e@fourny.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.131.235.3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I)

Grim wrote:

> Nick Porcino <Nick_Porcino@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote in article
> > People complain about CW a lot, but I got better (by a few %) framerates
> > out of the balls demo with CW than with gcc.
> >
> > - nick
>
> Have you had a look at
>
> http://www.playatation.co.uk/~KEVINP/fire_result.html      ??
>
> He did some timings on one of his games and found that CW code was 3-4
> times slower than gcc. He says that CW with full optimisers on is about
> comparable to gcc with no optimisation.
>
> Has anyone else ran any benchmarks??
>
> Graeme

GCC with no optimisation and CW with no optimisation....I compared them
and only thing I can say is GCC's object code is typically 30% larger than
CW's.

Craig.