which compiler is better?

Which is better, out of:
Standard compiler, version 13.10.3077
Optimizing compiler, version 12.00.8804

??

Tim
Sat Feb 07 05:03:15 CST 2004

"Bonj" <a@b.com> wrote in message
news:%23eNLAdR7DHA.3288@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Which is better, out of:
> Standard compiler, version 13.10.3077
> Optimizing compiler, version 12.00.8804

Don't know, but the Pessimizing compiler version 0.9 is worse.

If you're talking about Microsoft compilers: version 13 (Visual C++ 2002) is
more standards compliant than version 12. However, clearly the version
you've got that came with 2002 lacks the optimizer.

--
Tim Robinson (MVP, Windows SDK)
http://www.themobius.co.uk/

Bonj
Sat Feb 07 06:47:57 CST 2004

No, it's that one that HAS got the optimizer.
The more recent one that I downloaded with the SDK v1.1 is a more recent
one, but only 'standard'.
The 2002 one that came with the IDE is 13.00.9466, while the SDK one is
13.10.3077.


"Tim Robinson" <tim.at.gaat.freeserve.co.uk@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:c02glh$11vtfv$1@ID-103400.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "Bonj" <a@b.com> wrote in message
> news:%23eNLAdR7DHA.3288@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > Which is better, out of:
> > Standard compiler, version 13.10.3077
> > Optimizing compiler, version 12.00.8804
>
> Don't know, but the Pessimizing compiler version 0.9 is worse.
>
> If you're talking about Microsoft compilers: version 13 (Visual C++ 2002)
is
> more standards compliant than version 12. However, clearly the version
> you've got that came with 2002 lacks the optimizer.
>
> --
> Tim Robinson (MVP, Windows SDK)
> http://www.themobius.co.uk/
>
>

Tim
Sat Feb 07 06:57:47 CST 2004

So it's a choice between the VS 2002 version (00.9466, optimizing), or the
SDK version (10.3077, non-optimizing)? Then it depends if you want the
optimizer -- any other differences are likely to be small, and mainly bug
fixes.

--
Tim Robinson (MVP, Windows SDK)
http://www.themobius.co.uk/

"Bonj" <a@b.com> wrote in message
news:O9SUWiX7DHA.2676@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> No, it's that one that HAS got the optimizer.
> The more recent one that I downloaded with the SDK v1.1 is a more recent
> one, but only 'standard'.
> The 2002 one that came with the IDE is 13.00.9466, while the SDK one is
> 13.10.3077.
>
>
> "Tim Robinson" <tim.at.gaat.freeserve.co.uk@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:c02glh$11vtfv$1@ID-103400.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > "Bonj" <a@b.com> wrote in message
> > news:%23eNLAdR7DHA.3288@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > > Which is better, out of:
> > > Standard compiler, version 13.10.3077
> > > Optimizing compiler, version 12.00.8804
> >
> > Don't know, but the Pessimizing compiler version 0.9 is worse.
> >
> > If you're talking about Microsoft compilers: version 13 (Visual C++
2002)
> is
> > more standards compliant than version 12. However, clearly the version
> > you've got that came with 2002 lacks the optimizer.
> >
> > --
> > Tim Robinson (MVP, Windows SDK)
> > http://www.themobius.co.uk/
> >
> >
>
>

Lucas
Sat Feb 07 08:13:31 CST 2004

Well... which compiler is better is a tricky question. I think that the only
answer would be version 13 is more conforming, and the Optimizing compiler
generates faster code :-)
Lucas/
"Bonj" <a@b.com> wrote in message
news:%23eNLAdR7DHA.3288@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Which is better, out of:
> Standard compiler, version 13.10.3077
> Optimizing compiler, version 12.00.8804
>
> ??
>
>
>

Carl
Sat Feb 07 09:48:48 CST 2004

Bonj wrote:
> Which is better, out of:
> Standard compiler, version 13.10.3077

VC7.1 Standard Edition. Highly standards conformant, no optimizer.

> Optimizing compiler, version 12.00.8804

VC6 Professional Edition. Poor standards conformance but decent optimizer.

What's more important to you, quality of generated code, or your ability to
write C++ the way it was meant to be written?

-cd

Carl
Sat Feb 07 09:50:06 CST 2004

Bonj wrote:
> The 2002 one that came with the IDE is 13.00.9466,

VC7

> while the SDK one is 13.10.3077.

VC7.1

Of these two, definitely use the latter.

-cd

Jochen
Sat Feb 07 12:10:18 CST 2004

Bonj wrote:

> No, it's that one that HAS got the optimizer.
> The more recent one that I downloaded with the SDK v1.1 is a more
> recent one, but only 'standard'.
> The 2002 one that came with the IDE is 13.00.9466, while the SDK one
> is 13.10.3077.

If you can download the DDK it has the newest optimized compiler (newer
than VC2003).
Or you can order it from MS (29$) if you only use it for testing or DDK
developing...

--
Greetings
Jochen

Do you need a memory-leak finder ?
http://www.codeproject.com/tools/leakfinder.asp

Bonj
Sat Feb 07 20:10:30 CST 2004

Quality of generated code, I would say. Rather, speed - as long as it does
what I tell it due to non-conformance, which it never has yet, so I am using
the optimizing one (7.0). I just wondered if the 7.1 compiler produced
faster code even though it wasn't the optimizing one, just for being more
modern - but perhaps not.


"Carl Daniel [VC++ MVP]" <cpdaniel_remove_this_and_nospam@mvps.org.nospam>
wrote in message news:%23gRhjHZ7DHA.1428@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Bonj wrote:
> > Which is better, out of:
> > Standard compiler, version 13.10.3077
>
> VC7.1 Standard Edition. Highly standards conformant, no optimizer.
>
> > Optimizing compiler, version 12.00.8804
>
> VC6 Professional Edition. Poor standards conformance but decent
optimizer.
>
> What's more important to you, quality of generated code, or your ability
to
> write C++ the way it was meant to be written?
>
> -cd
>
>

Bonj
Sat Feb 07 20:18:00 CST 2004

Where would I download it from?

"Jochen Kalmbach" <nospam-Jochen.Kalmbach@holzma.de> wrote in message
news:Xns9488C36486613nospamJochenKalmbach@207.46.248.16...
> Bonj wrote:
>
> > No, it's that one that HAS got the optimizer.
> > The more recent one that I downloaded with the SDK v1.1 is a more
> > recent one, but only 'standard'.
> > The 2002 one that came with the IDE is 13.00.9466, while the SDK one
> > is 13.10.3077.
>
> If you can download the DDK it has the newest optimized compiler (newer
> than VC2003).
> Or you can order it from MS (29$) if you only use it for testing or DDK
> developing...
>
> --
> Greetings
> Jochen
>
> Do you need a memory-leak finder ?
> http://www.codeproject.com/tools/leakfinder.asp

Carl
Sat Feb 07 20:17:43 CST 2004

Bonj wrote:
> Quality of generated code, I would say. Rather, speed - as long as it
> does what I tell it due to non-conformance, which it never has yet,
> so I am using the optimizing one (7.0).

If the optimizing compiler you have is 12.00.8804 (which is what you said in
your original post), that's VC6, not VC7. Just to be clear.

> I just wondered if the 7.1
> compiler produced faster code even though it wasn't the optimizing
> one, just for being more modern - but perhaps not.

Not much chance of that. I'd expect that with no optimization the two
compilers (7 and 7.1) will produce very similar code.

-cd

Carl
Sat Feb 07 22:38:23 CST 2004

Bonj wrote:
> Where would I download it from?

Unless you have an MSDN subscription (in which case you have it on CD
already) you can't download it.

-cd

Bonj
Sun Feb 08 07:21:50 CST 2004

Yes, you're right. I've got the following:
VC6 (which includes the 12.00.8804 optimizer),
VS.NET 2002 IDE (which includes the 13.00.9466 optimizer),
and the SDK v1.1 (which includes the 13.10.3077 standard).

so I'm going to carry on using the IDE one. And since I'm using the IDE's
compiler, I may as well make life easy for myself and use the IDE itself! At
least I've actually done the learning of how NOT to, should I need that
knowledge. Or then again I could just upgrade to the 2003 IDE.


"Carl Daniel [VC++ MVP]" <cpdaniel_remove_this_and_nospam@mvps.org.nospam>
wrote in message news:eKNT9me7DHA.1716@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Bonj wrote:
> > Quality of generated code, I would say. Rather, speed - as long as it
> > does what I tell it due to non-conformance, which it never has yet,
> > so I am using the optimizing one (7.0).
>
> If the optimizing compiler you have is 12.00.8804 (which is what you said
in
> your original post), that's VC6, not VC7. Just to be clear.
>
> > I just wondered if the 7.1
> > compiler produced faster code even though it wasn't the optimizing
> > one, just for being more modern - but perhaps not.
>
> Not much chance of that. I'd expect that with no optimization the two
> compilers (7 and 7.1) will produce very similar code.
>
> -cd
>
>

Bonj
Sun Feb 08 07:22:26 CST 2004

Right, looks like a visit to the 'market', then!

"Carl Daniel [VC++ MVP]" <cpdaniel_remove_this_and_nospam@mvps.org.nospam>
wrote in message news:uAspj1f7DHA.2056@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Bonj wrote:
> > Where would I download it from?
>
> Unless you have an MSDN subscription (in which case you have it on CD
> already) you can't download it.
>
> -cd
>
>
>