
Compiler numbers, and why they don't matter - todsacerdoti
https://briancallahan.net/blog/20200806.html
======
compiler-guy
Author's only analysis is on the size of binaries. And while they are right to
the extent of the point they are making, size is only one dimension.

Every compiler, but especially optimizing compilers, makes hundreds of
tradeoffs as it generates object code. Some for speed of compilation, some for
speed of resultant code, some for size. This is true even at various
optimization levels. They all have thresholds and decision points about what
makes better code, given the hundreds of dimensions they can be measured
against.

The only true answer to this question is to build your own code with a variety
of compilers, and see which produces the results that makes the best trade
offs for your own project. Fastest running, fastest build, smallest code,
smallest footprint, most standards conforming, whatever else.

Your own code and needs are what governs.

------
rational_indian
> 15e2

This looks like 15 x 10^2 to me. I think all caps hex may be able to avoid
such problems.

~~~
war1025
I don't really understand why the author chose hex for the file size to begin
with.

The first table is all "3b", which I initially interpreted as "3 bytes". Spent
a good ten seconds wondering how any executable could be only three bytes.

