At 07:20 AM 8/3/01, Bill Moseley wrote:
>I see so much of this kind of thing that I think that you will be better
>off with gcc, if possible.

I wrote/sell a commercial software package which backs up your point.
The gcc-compiled version is smaller on disk, uses less memory, runs
faster, and compiles faster. The differences run as much as 50%.

Why would anyone pay for an inferior compiler when the better one is free?
I switched to gcc many years ago.

SRE

mailto:eckert(at)not-real.climber.org | http://www.climber.org/eckert/
Info on peak climbing email lists mailto:info@climber.org

"I couldn't remember when I had been so disappointed. 
 Except perhaps the time I found out that
 M&Ms really *do* melt in your hand ..."
                -- Peter Oakley