On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Scott Dattalo wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Dale Botkin wrote:
>
> > I can tell you that at least *one* of those was written impartially and
> > presented accurately.  CCS provided a test program to be compiled with
> > their compiler and Brand X, and the results noted.  It was all standard C
> > (I'd have to look again, but I'm pretty sure it was ANSI) with no
> > CCS-specific tilt that I could see.
>
>
> The comparison is reasonably objective. It leaves out a couple of
> important pieces of information:
>
>    -- Compiler version  - Did CCS purchase picc or did they just
>       use the demo? (It says they're using version 7.86 - is this
>       old?) And if they're using the demo version of picc, is it
>       crippled?

Dunno, I didn't do the HT comparison.  8-)

>    -- Benchmark code is missing - AFAICT their benchmark program is:
>
>            putch(literal);
>
>       I suspect there's more to it than just that! If so, where is
>       the whole program?

It's a valid point; they probably should publish the benchmark code.  The
file I was given to use, bm.c, runs to 200 lines.

By the way, I should clarify...  "written impartially" should read "tested
and reported impartially".  I was not exepcting anything when I ran the
test, and reported both the good and the bad to CCS -- which published
(AFAIR) most of both.  I didn't notice that the end result was any
different than my experience indicated, not that they needed any help from
me.

Dale

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics