Best C/C++ Compiler
Does anyone out there use the Intel C/C++ compiler? I see it all the time in the Programmer's Paradise Catalogs and it claims to accelerate your application by generating the best possible assembly code. Intel makes the chips so they must know how to write compilers eh? I've used GCC and VC++ and of course Watcom and Turbo/Borland C/C++ all which were good products. Never tried Metroworks Codewarrior Line. Which one is the best though? Tough question to answer. If I remember right Watcom's compiler could output 386 32-bit assembly code. Wow. But I did'nt like the IDE that it shipped with. That was what mid 90's time-frame I think? What are the best/most productive C/C++ compilers you have used?
A thought: The best compiler is the standard one.
What are you most interested in?
Flippy the Binhead
Our experiences with the Intel compiler (v6?) have not been good. Compile times were *way* higher (6 times slower) than the Microsoft v7 compiler and the code was only marginally faster (and larger) after we tweaked the optimization settings a lot.
Just another dude
I was once the lead compiler engineer on the Metrowerks C/C++ compiler for x86, before moving on to PDA related development. At that time (1998-2000), the compiler went from lackluster performance to beating VC++ on many benchmarks. Floating point performance wasn't always 100%, but integer code performance did very well, and we did a lot of work on optimizing for AMD's K6-3D instruction set, and later the new instructions introduced in the AMD Athlon. When I left the project, I think we were pretty comparable to VC++ 6, although generally a lot better in standards compliance. Our compatibility with DLLs made for VC++ was good, but static libraries always suffered from compiler and runtime dependencies.
It totally depends on what you are doing... If you want the fastest or smallest code, you'll probably have to try several compilers yourself; in my experience no single compiler always delivers better results than the others. If you are using one of those template-intensive numerics libraries or STL a lot, you'll want a compiler that is good with templates.
I have a copy of (the outdated?) Codewarrior for Windows v2.0, and it knocks socks off GCC 3.2 (Mingw) for the kind of code I write (genetic algorithms) which is very computationally intensive. I'll have to look and see if I can upgrade it yet.. the newer Codewarrrior IDE might be much more VC++-like
a metrowerks fan
Watcom was of course bought by sybase wayback and they have since opensourced the compiler openwatcom.org i think.
Comeau C++ is a bit more compliant over Intel & VC2003 since it implements "extern" for templates, but this feature may turn out to be way more useless than many have thought. Intel (and VC2003 which seems to be very comparable) C++ has excellent standard compliance and excellent optimization features, also it's ~100% compliant to VC (Windows) and gcc (Linux).
Borland's C++ compiler (in C++ Builder) excels in fast build times and precompiled headers, but I believe Microsoft's compiler does a better job at code optimization. I'd be interested in more information about this, since it's been a few years ago that I've used VC++.
Not trying to get too off-topic, but to answer the question about the current CodeWarrior IDE on Windows, I'd say that it feels a lot more like a pure Win32 app these days, but that we've intentionally not cloned the VC++ interface. We still have a very flexible project/target build system, the debugger still uses the three-pane browser model, and we still let you work in either MDI or FDI (VB-like) mode. The current IDE supports some code completion, and it will let you dock and tab-group windows in flexible manner if you're in MDI mode. We did a rework a couple of years ago, eliminating more of the Mac2Win porting library and rehosting on MFC, so a lot of quirks were cleared up then.
this is weird
band is cool
I can't compile with watcom C.
Fog Creek Home