Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: BGB <cr88192@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: C23 thoughts and opinions
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2024 00:04:02 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <v40oqa$2fjig$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v2l828$18v7f$1@dont-email.me> <v38of2$1gsj2$1@dont-email.me>
 <v39v87$1n7bk$1@dont-email.me> <20240530170836.00005fa0@yahoo.com>
 <v3a3k5$1ntrn$1@dont-email.me> <20240530180345.00003d9f@yahoo.com>
 <v3chc4$27uij$1@dont-email.me> <20240531161937.000063af@yahoo.com>
 <20240531162811.00006719@yahoo.com> <20240531164835.00007128@yahoo.com>
 <v3cldt$28n91$2@dont-email.me> <20240531173437.00003bee@yahoo.com>
 <v3d3ct$2b5sl$1@dont-email.me> <v3d97c$2c6ea$1@dont-email.me>
 <22r6O.5934$xPJ1.2590@fx09.iad> <v3t6nu$1liet$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3tlmo$1o860$7@dont-email.me> <v3vvph$27spv$1@dont-email.me>
 <v40hum$2err2$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2024 07:05:14 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="51e60a99c6f849f26f298e0d84d4cfe3";
	logging-data="2608720"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/RqXltozt3sQkhvq5ECeXqW3fXugW/L94="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Y/NnbtRDAao8QC0EwQrcHKAsGH4=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v40hum$2err2$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3582

On 6/7/2024 10:08 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 16:58:08 -0500, BGB-Alt wrote:
> 
>> I think code generation went in the bulky direction when they started
>> adding auto-vectorization, and not really any option to be like "Yes, I
>> want SIMD instructions enabled, but, no, don't autovectorize."
>>
>> Sometimes vectorization makes things faster, sometimes not, but one
>> thing it does do, is make the generated binaries bigger.
> 
> And MSVC is the compiler that Microsoft use to build Windows itself, isn’t
> it?
> 

Yes, pretty much.


> Unless they’ve turned to GCC now ...

I think there has been at least some experimental use of Clang as an 
alternative compiler in Visual Studio.


But, in general, I suspect MS doesn't care if the EXE and DLL files are 
bulky and if their compiler doesn't win the performance game. They had 
kept trying to push people over to .NET anyways, which doesn't exactly 
improve things in terms of performance.


One thing MSVC does have going for it, is that Visual Studio is a much 
better debugger and profiler (in terms of user interface) than GDB and 
GPROF.

Though, there was also WinDbg, which is a more powerful debugger, but 
with a less well polished UI.


Can also note that the compilers handle debugging info different:
   GCC tends to put debug data in the binary itself (as DWARF or STABS);
   MSVC puts it into external files (".PDB" or similar).

One merit of using separate files is that one doesn't need to recompile 
to remove the debugging data.


Thus far, my compiler had used an augmented form of the symbol maps; 
using a similar format to the output of the "nm" tool; but with 
additional types of lines for things like line-number information and 
similar, etc. Currently not yet anything to describe things like 
stack-frame or structure layouts, etc (and there may need to be a better 
way to do this than to shove all this stuff in a symbol map file).

....