> I've often wondered why gcc replaced pcc in the *BSD's. I assumed
> >it was licensing reasons, or that gcc is more actively maintained.
> >Does anyone maintain pcc at the moment?
> 
> Because people were working on gcc and no one was working on pcc.
>
Well, one reason was that pcc was non-ansi and gcc was ansi, and besides
that it also is capable of generating much more efficient code.
Another reason is that it is AT&T-code, so it couldn't be redistributed.
If you compile with gcc without -O it will run much faster but generate
code as bad as what pcc produces.

On vax, the executable code is normally around 25-30% faster if gcc
is used.

-- Ragge