Re: Is There Still a Need for "Turbo" Compilers?

On 2008-03-17, Jon Forrest <jlforrest@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> However, these days there aren't any "Turbo" language implementations
> that I'm aware of. Is this because modern hardware is so fast that it
> isn't worth developing compilers and linkers optimized for speed? By
> using proper command line arguments to gcc, can you get quasi-Turbo
> performance compared to using arguments that result in
> highly-optimized code?

Note that at least a significant part of the speed differences between
"Turbo*" and gcc don't come from optimization but the integration of
the various stages of the compiling process.