On 17 jan 2004, at 15:54, Paschal Mushubi wrote:
Actually I don't mind "hacks" that take advantage of specific features
of the platform. On Windows I would rather compile my production
code using Visual C++ rather than g++ using Cygwin although g++ is more
standards compliant ("cleaner" ) than Visual C++. Cygwin applications don't
run as fast as native Windows apps for obvious reasons.
On Linux I keep away from Wine applications. They perform poorly because they don't take advantage of Linux's
specific features.
Compilers in general don't take advantage of OS-specific features, that's mainly the domain of the run time library. Our win32 and linux rtl's both use the underlying OS-features pretty well, I think. Further, the main reason VC++ is so much better g++, is that it has a much better code generator and optimizer than g++ (and FPC). I doubt it has very much to do with win32-specific optimizations or features. It may have to do with the fact that VC++ x86-only (while g++ supports pretty much every processor out there), but that's not a guarantee: FPC did not generate better code when it was still x86-only compared to now.
You could argue that if all effort put into making FPC more platform-independent was put in x86-specific work, it would now be much better for x86 than it is at the momement. However, I'm not certain of that. Because we wanted to support more architectures, we have converted the code generator from messy procedural code to an extensible OOP design. This has not only made porting much easier, but also made the code generator much easier to understand, extend and you can still add cpu-specific performance enhancements without the need for hacks (you just override some method). And you always have (after a while) well-tested generic code to fall back on and to test against.
Jonas
_______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
