Re: How does gcc compare to other C++ compilers
cpp4ever <n2xssvv.g02gfr12930@ntlworld.com> wrote:
As a Linux user, I rarely ever really get to try other compilers.
Personally I find gcc does the job, probably not as good as some for
optimisation, but I have no need to be that bleeding edge. More to the
point I like the freeware community out there, the support may not be
quite as direct, but I find it excellent, (once found).
I hear that gcc is one of the slowest compilers in existence. (Which
doesn't mean it generates slow code. It means that it takes a long amount
of time to compile a program.) And this even *without* any optimizations
or such heavy options turned on. This is a pretty common complaint.
With a program of a couple of thousands of lines you won't notice.
However, with a program with a couple millions of lines of code you
will certainly start to notice whether compiling it takes a half hour
or two minutes.
When you are compiling a debug version of your program, you don't want
to wait a half hour for the compiler to get finished. With a debug version
you *don't care* what the quality (in terms of efficiency) of the resulting
binary is, as long as you get it fast. (Compiling with full optimizations
is a different story.)
On other fronts (quality of the generated binary executable, support for
the C++ standard) it's one of the top tiers, so not many worries there.