Subject: [clisp-list] Re: cygwin

From: Bruno Haible <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri May 17 17:37:03 2002

> Now I read about another compile-method in the "gambit" docs and the
> compiler is Watcom C/C++.

Forget it. Don't waste your time on it. Watcom C is *crap*. There are
many compilers that are not as good as GCC. But none is as crappy as
Watcom C.

Bruno

---

From: Darryl Okahata <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon May 20 13:31:04 2002

> many compilers that are not as good as GCC. But none is as crappy as

     I don't know what Watcom is like now (or if it's even still
around), but, 10 years ago, Watcom C blew everything else away -- it was
VERY good, and very reliable (IIRC).  In the years since then, I've yet
to see an i86 compiler that even comes close to the incredibly-efficient
code output by the Watcom C compiler (although I have not, admittedly,
looked at the output of the Intel one).  If you enable argument-passing-
via-registers, the generated code is difficult to distinguish from
hand-written assembly code.

-- 
	Darryl Okahata
	[email-masked]

DISCLAIMER: this message is the author's personal opinion and does not
constitute the support, opinion, or policy of Agilent Technologies, or
of the little green men that have been following him all day.