On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 02:19:35PM -0500, Lord Isildur wrote:
> pcc also generates fast code. faster than gcc on vax at any rate.. i 
> should do a more involved comparison than the little shootout between gcc 
> and pcc and ultrix/vax cc that ragge and i did.. though we had machines 
> of somewhat different characteristics, but pcc2's code was at least as 
> fast as gcc's best optimization. 

I don't know what this "pcc2" you're referring to is.  4.3 shipped with
the VAX version of the plain old "pcc" compiler from Bell Labs, and it
just plain sucked.  I have great difficulty believing you when you claim
that it produced better code than gcc; if that is true, GCC has gotten
far worse on the VAX than it once was, and I don't really see any reason
why that would be the case.

> On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Matt Thomas wrote:
> 
> > At 01:32 PM 1/23/2001 -0500, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> > >pcc is a *terrible* compiler.  If we shipped pcc instead of gcc (not that
> > >we can, due to licensing; SCO owns the code) you'd be complaining about
> 
>  pcc was in net2 though, wasnt it? it's not encumbered code. 

That is just plain false.

Thor