Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.vms
Subject: Re: Itanium support is back in GCC 15
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 23:22:22 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <20250224232222.00003e97@yahoo.com>
References: <vgb3kb$12h4i$2@dont-email.me>
	<vgba26$13nmf$1@dont-email.me>
	<lp4c05FdsbqU1@mid.individual.net>
	<vgjck0$2qpmc$1@dont-email.me>
	<20250224194239.00006b6a@yahoo.com>
	<vpijkn$1ctsp$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 22:22:25 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0d42211f2715059ef3fed4ed8ac62054";
	logging-data="1540434"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+uV/F3QkqzZrn4gG9VOgPKyfeLeDaQ8xQ="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:smSJYBfWvu37SeQDK6pRj8n8PhA=
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 4.1.1 (GTK 3.24.34; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
Bytes: 2982

On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 15:08:57 -0500
Arne Vajh=F8j <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:

> On 2/24/2025 12:42 PM, Michael S wrote:
> > On Thu, 7 Nov 2024 16:48:49 -0500
> > Arne Vajh=F8j <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote: =20
> >> On 11/7/2024 12:33 PM, gcalliet wrote: =20
> >>> Le 04/11/2024 =E0 21:16, Arne Vajh=F8j a =E9crit=A0: =20
> >>>> I wish someone would volunteer to create VMS support
> >>>> in GCC 16 or whatever!
> >>>>    =20
> >>> Because I created (canadian method) Gnat Ada (on gcc) for VMS
> >>> Itanium, and because we were on gcc 4.7, there is some work ahead,
> >>> but why not :)
> >>>
> >>> The big issue is the step to gcc 5, where they upgraded to c++
> >>> mode. It is one of the reasons why Adacore didn't continue support
> >>> of gnat ada on VMS in 2015. =20
> >>
> >> VMS x86-64 has a better C++ compiler than VMS Itanium. =20
>=20
> That comment was about C++ standard compliance not performance.
>=20

Ok

> C++ VMS x86-64 is clang which in the (older) clang version used
> should mean C++14 while C++ VMS Itanium is very very old (like
> C++ 98 old).
>=20
> > According to the benchmarks that you posted here several months (a
> > year?) ago, VMS x86-64 compilers are quite awful comparatively to
> > x86-64 compilers available on Windows/Linux/BSD.
> > Do you want to say that VMS Itanium compilers are worse? =20
>=20
> I believe the conclusion was that the VMS x86-64 compilers except C++
> was slower than C/C++ on other OS and C++ on VMS.
>=20

Somehow I got an impression that C++ compilers were also significantly
slower than C++ compilers on other platforms.
Do I misremember?

> My guess is that it is a combination of the GEM to LLVM translation
> and a desire from VSI to be a little conservative (prioritizing
> correctness over speed).
>=20
> Arne
>=20