Norcroft versus GCC

A full comparison of Norcroft versus GCC is quite extensive. In the interests of having something here instead of nothing, I will initially keep this to a list of advantages of each, but it will be extended later on.

Norcroft:

• Faster than GCC to compile programs, probably by about two times.
• Uses less memory, especially for C++, which can take large amounts of when optimisation is on with GCC.
• Although it has a smaller number of warnings, they can be a lot stronger in places, especially for enumeration types.
• It can generate modules, whilst GCC can't.
• Can generate debug information suitable for DDT.

GCC:

• Is able to compile GNU extensions, which is required for some Unix porting.
• Supports a much newer C++ implementation than Norcroft, as well as C99.
• Large range of warnings, which can be extensively controlled.
• Many other switches to control compiliation behaviour.
• Freely available.

Both Compilers:

• Can build with either SharedCLibrary or Unixlib.
• Generate code that runs at very similar speed (when GCC's optimisation is turned on), although GCC can generate larger executables in some instances.