Are there any benchmarks that compare DMC with other C/C++ compilers?

    In particular I am very interested about the performance of DMC against
BCC, VC++, Watcom C++ and GCC.

What kind of Benchmarks are you looking for?
Compile time?
Link time?
Executable size?
Execution time of generated executable?



"Javier Gutiérrez" wrote:

>     Are there any benchmarks that compare DMC with other C/C++ compilers?
>
>     In particular I am very interested about the performance of DMC against
> BCC, VC++, Watcom C++ and GCC.

Jan Knepper wrote:
> What kind of Benchmarks are you looking for?
> Compile time?
> Link time?
> Executable size?
> Execution time of generated executable?

The only benchmark i've found interesting (not useful, not valid, just interesting) was compiling and running the TwoFish encryption algorithm.  iirc The authors compared MSVC, Borland, and hand coded assembler.  http://www.counterpane.com/twofish.html

For things like twofish, you usually want executable size or executable speed to be good (twofish can be tweaked to help out for either of those features).

For larger projects like mozilla (yeah i'll try again RSN) compile time, link time and execution performance are probably the most important, lesser would be executable size. <- getting numbers from building mozilla is really too complicated to be practical. Usually you want to do depend builds but build time measurements require clobbers. Execution performance is kind of measurable, but then you have the same sort of questions,.. what and how to measure.

I have written some benchmark test for basically all the things I mentioned. However, I am not to the point yet were I want to publish the stuff...

My general conclusion so far is that DMC++ usually compiles quite a bit faster than *any* competitor. I've tried this with small projects, but also with projects of over 200 source files. (Just compiled a project of 260 source files...). Surprizingly DMC++ on top taking the shortest time to compile and build also generated the smallest and actually fastest executables... These two together are reasons for me to stay with DMC++ dispite the lack of some later
C++ language additions that have not been implemented yet. I would guess that my benchmarks are limited as I have not yet tested any complicated mathematical stuff. For that reason I still hesitate to publish my experience also I have mentioned these results before.

Jan



Josh Soref wrote:

> Jan Knepper wrote:
> > What kind of Benchmarks are you looking for?
> > Compile time?
> > Link time?
> > Executable size?
> > Execution time of generated executable?
>
> The only benchmark i've found interesting (not useful, not valid, just interesting) was compiling and running the TwoFish encryption algorithm.  iirc The authors compared MSVC, Borland, and hand coded assembler.  http://www.counterpane.com/twofish.html
>
> For things like twofish, you usually want executable size or executable speed to be good (twofish can be tweaked to help out for either of those features).
>
> For larger projects like mozilla (yeah i'll try again RSN) compile time, link time and execution performance are probably the most important, lesser would be executable size. <- getting numbers from building mozilla is really too complicated to be practical. Usually you want to do depend builds but build time measurements require clobbers. Execution performance is kind of measurable, but then you have the same sort of questions,.. what and how to measure.

I am interested specilly in spped and size of the generated executable.

Could you tell me the numbers, seconds and KBs of your tests? Which are the other compilers in your tests?


"Jan Knepper" <jan@smartsoft.cc> escribió en el mensaje news:3B4B62EC.137F13E7@smartsoft.cc...
> I have written some benchmark test for basically all the things I
mentioned. However, I am not to the point yet were I want to publish the stuff...
>
> My general conclusion so far is that DMC++ usually compiles quite a bit
faster than *any* competitor. I've tried this with small projects, but also with projects of over 200 source files. (Just compiled a project of 260 source files...). Surprizingly DMC++ on top taking the shortest time to compile and build also generated the smallest and actually fastest executables... These two together are reasons for me to stay with DMC++ dispite the lack of some later
> C++ language additions that have not been implemented yet. I would guess
that my benchmarks are limited as I have not yet tested any complicated mathematical stuff. For that reason I still hesitate to publish my experience also I have mentioned these results before.
>
> Jan
>
>
>
> Josh Soref wrote:
>
> > Jan Knepper wrote:
> > > What kind of Benchmarks are you looking for?
> > > Compile time?
> > > Link time?
> > > Executable size?
> > > Execution time of generated executable?
> >
> > The only benchmark i've found interesting (not useful, not valid, just
interesting) was compiling and running the TwoFish encryption algorithm. iirc The authors compared MSVC, Borland, and hand coded assembler. http://www.counterpane.com/twofish.html
> >
> > For things like twofish, you usually want executable size or executable
speed to be good (twofish can be tweaked to help out for either of those
features).
> >
> > For larger projects like mozilla (yeah i'll try again RSN) compile time,
link time and execution performance are probably the most important, lesser would be executable size. <- getting numbers from building mozilla is really too complicated to be practical. Usually you want to do depend builds but build time measurements require clobbers. Execution performance is kind of measurable, but then you have the same sort of questions,.. what and how to measure.
>

"Javier Gutiérrez" wrote:

> I am interested specilly in spped and size of the generated executable.

OK, I can get you those.

> Could you tell me the numbers, seconds and KBs of your tests? Which are the other compilers in your tests?

Borland C++ Builder V5.0
Microsoft Visual C-- 6.0

I also used to compile with Watcom C++, but I do not want to Install it again...

Jan



>
>
> "Jan Knepper" <jan@smartsoft.cc> escribió en el mensaje news:3B4B62EC.137F13E7@smartsoft.cc...
> > I have written some benchmark test for basically all the things I
> mentioned. However, I am not to the point yet were I want to publish the stuff...
> >
> > My general conclusion so far is that DMC++ usually compiles quite a bit
> faster than *any* competitor. I've tried this with small projects, but also with projects of over 200 source files. (Just compiled a project of 260 source files...). Surprizingly DMC++ on top taking the shortest time to compile and build also generated the smallest and actually fastest executables... These two together are reasons for me to stay with DMC++ dispite the lack of some later
> > C++ language additions that have not been implemented yet. I would guess
> that my benchmarks are limited as I have not yet tested any complicated mathematical stuff. For that reason I still hesitate to publish my experience also I have mentioned these results before.
> >
> > Jan
> >
> >
> >
> > Josh Soref wrote:
> >
> > > Jan Knepper wrote:
> > > > What kind of Benchmarks are you looking for?
> > > > Compile time?
> > > > Link time?
> > > > Executable size?
> > > > Execution time of generated executable?
> > >
> > > The only benchmark i've found interesting (not useful, not valid, just
> interesting) was compiling and running the TwoFish encryption algorithm. iirc The authors compared MSVC, Borland, and hand coded assembler. http://www.counterpane.com/twofish.html
> > >
> > > For things like twofish, you usually want executable size or executable
> speed to be good (twofish can be tweaked to help out for either of those
> features).
> > >
> > > For larger projects like mozilla (yeah i'll try again RSN) compile time,
> link time and execution performance are probably the most important, lesser would be executable size. <- getting numbers from building mozilla is really too complicated to be practical. Usually you want to do depend builds but build time measurements require clobbers. Execution performance is kind of measurable, but then you have the same sort of questions,.. what and how to measure.
> >

"Javier Gutiérrez" <nikkho@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:9iffn8$1r78$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>     Are there any benchmarks that compare DMC with other C/C++ compilers?
>
>     In particular I am very interested about the performance of DMC
against
> BCC, VC++, Watcom C++ and GCC.
>
Compiling the source code of the gcc compiler (Approx 11MB of C). A compiler is a good real life application: it makes heavy use of I/O, calculations, etc.

Optimizations on in all compilers (dmc flag: -o, lcc flag -O, gcc flag -O9,
msvc flag -Ox)
To test the generated compilers I used a preprocessed C source (274K)

NOTES:
MSVC 6.0: Crashes during compilation with:
d:\lcc\egcs\reload.c(2852) : fatal error C1001: INTERNAL COMPILER ERROR
                (compiler file
'f:\vs70builds\9030\vc\Compiler\Utc\src\P2\main.c', line 148)
I used MSVC 4.2 instead

Borlands free compiler generates a faulty executable (crashes during
execution).

Compilation time
DMC       325.29 seconds
lcc-win32: 38.7 seconds
gcc:          207.3 seconds
MSVC:     64.112 seconds

Execution time
DMC         6.038 seconds
lcc-win32:  6.77 seconds
gcc             5.92 seconds
MSVC4.2   5.728 seconds

Executable size (bytes)
DMC       1 890 332
lcc-win32: 1 778 208
gcc:           1 956 864
MSVC      1 884 672

Discussion:
1: The option /IMPLIBC made the linker of DMC crash, so the executable size
mentioned above includes the size of the C library that was statically
linked. This should reduce the size of the DMC executable by 40K approx.
2: MSVC 6.0 should have approx twice the compilation time of MSVC 4.2 and
approx the same speed. A bigger executable size too, since progress is
progress :-)
3: To minimize the influence of I/O, I used a source code with a BIG switch
statement (approx 600 cases) that makes the gcc code stop for at least 4-5
seconds, almost all the compilation time is spent in optimizing that switch
statement, so the influence of I/O is minimized but still present.
4: I used a Windows 2000 system with an Athlon 650MHZ CPU and 256MB of RAM.
5: Without optimization, the speed of DMC is INCREDIBLE (26 seconds!!!). The
execution speed increses to 7.6 seconds only, and the executable size
increases to 2 115 100. It beats even lcc-win32!

Make sure you use -6 on dmc. Some versions used -5 (Pentium scheduling), which is not optimal for later CPUs. -Walter

jacob navia wrote in message <9jjjvc$16o9$1@digitaldaemon.com>...
>
>"Javier Gutiérrez" <nikkho@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:9iffn8$1r78$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>     Are there any benchmarks that compare DMC with other C/C++ compilers?
>>
>>     In particular I am very interested about the performance of DMC
>against
>> BCC, VC++, Watcom C++ and GCC.
>>
>Compiling the source code of the gcc compiler (Approx 11MB of C). A
compiler
>is a good real life application: it makes heavy use of I/O, calculations, etc.
>
>Optimizations on in all compilers (dmc flag: -o, lcc flag -O, gcc flag -O9,
>msvc flag -Ox)
>To test the generated compilers I used a preprocessed C source (274K)
>
>NOTES:
>MSVC 6.0: Crashes during compilation with:
>d:\lcc\egcs\reload.c(2852) : fatal error C1001: INTERNAL COMPILER ERROR
>                (compiler file
>'f:\vs70builds\9030\vc\Compiler\Utc\src\P2\main.c', line 148) I used MSVC 4.2 instead
>
>Borlands free compiler generates a faulty executable (crashes during
>execution).
>
>Compilation time
>DMC       325.29 seconds
>lcc-win32: 38.7 seconds
>gcc:          207.3 seconds
>MSVC:     64.112 seconds
>
>Execution time
>DMC         6.038 seconds
>lcc-win32:  6.77 seconds
>gcc             5.92 seconds
>MSVC4.2   5.728 seconds
>
>Executable size (bytes)
>DMC       1 890 332
>lcc-win32: 1 778 208
>gcc:           1 956 864
>MSVC      1 884 672
>
>Discussion:
>1: The option /IMPLIBC made the linker of DMC crash, so the executable size
>mentioned above includes the size of the C library that was statically
>linked. This should reduce the size of the DMC executable by 40K approx.
>2: MSVC 6.0 should have approx twice the compilation time of MSVC 4.2 and
>approx the same speed. A bigger executable size too, since progress is
>progress :-)
>3: To minimize the influence of I/O, I used a source code with a BIG switch
>statement (approx 600 cases) that makes the gcc code stop for at least 4-5
>seconds, almost all the compilation time is spent in optimizing that switch
>statement, so the influence of I/O is minimized but still present.
>4: I used a Windows 2000 system with an Athlon 650MHZ CPU and 256MB of RAM.
>5: Without optimization, the speed of DMC is INCREDIBLE (26 seconds!!!).
The
>execution speed increses to 7.6 seconds only, and the executable size increases to 2 115 100. It beats even lcc-win32!
>
>
>
>
>
>

    That's incredible! Seems that DMC is more stable than BCC 5.5 and MSVC
6!

    I think Walter can improve it with the time in order to generate better
executables...


"jacob navia" <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> escribió en el mensaje news:9jjjvc$16o9$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Javier Gutiérrez" <nikkho@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:9iffn8$1r78$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >     Are there any benchmarks that compare DMC with other C/C++
compilers?
> >
> >     In particular I am very interested about the performance of DMC
> against
> > BCC, VC++, Watcom C++ and GCC.
> >
> Compiling the source code of the gcc compiler (Approx 11MB of C). A
compiler
> is a good real life application: it makes heavy use of I/O, calculations, etc.
>
> Optimizations on in all compilers (dmc flag: -o, lcc flag -O, gcc
flag -O9,
> msvc flag -Ox)
> To test the generated compilers I used a preprocessed C source (274K)
>
> NOTES:
> MSVC 6.0: Crashes during compilation with:
> d:\lcc\egcs\reload.c(2852) : fatal error C1001: INTERNAL COMPILER ERROR
>                 (compiler file
> 'f:\vs70builds\9030\vc\Compiler\Utc\src\P2\main.c', line 148)
> I used MSVC 4.2 instead
>
> Borlands free compiler generates a faulty executable (crashes during
> execution).
>
> Compilation time
> DMC       325.29 seconds
> lcc-win32: 38.7 seconds
> gcc:          207.3 seconds
> MSVC:     64.112 seconds
>
> Execution time
> DMC         6.038 seconds
> lcc-win32:  6.77 seconds
> gcc             5.92 seconds
> MSVC4.2   5.728 seconds
>
> Executable size (bytes)
> DMC       1 890 332
> lcc-win32: 1 778 208
> gcc:           1 956 864
> MSVC      1 884 672
>
> Discussion:
> 1: The option /IMPLIBC made the linker of DMC crash, so the executable
size
> mentioned above includes the size of the C library that was statically
> linked. This should reduce the size of the DMC executable by 40K approx.
> 2: MSVC 6.0 should have approx twice the compilation time of MSVC 4.2 and
> approx the same speed. A bigger executable size too, since progress is
> progress :-)
> 3: To minimize the influence of I/O, I used a source code with a BIG
switch
> statement (approx 600 cases) that makes the gcc code stop for at least 4-5 seconds, almost all the compilation time is spent in optimizing that
switch
> statement, so the influence of I/O is minimized but still present.
> 4: I used a Windows 2000 system with an Athlon 650MHZ CPU and 256MB of
RAM.
> 5: Without optimization, the speed of DMC is INCREDIBLE (26 seconds!!!).
The
> execution speed increses to 7.6 seconds only, and the executable size increases to 2 115 100. It beats even lcc-win32!
>
>
>
>
>
>

"Javier Gutiérrez" wrote:

>     That's incredible! Seems that DMC is more stable than BCC 5.5 and MSVC
> 6!
>
>     I think Walter can improve it with the time in order to generate better
> executables...

<g>
As if I didn't know....

Jan