Mail Archives: djgpp/1996/07/17/12:00:35
Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> wrote:
>Did you check the compilation speed against the standards described in
>the DJGPP FAQ list? If not, please download the file v2/faq201b.zip from
Yes, the FAQ helped me with many general programing problems (BTW thanx,
without your FAQ i couldn't ever come so far. It helped me A LOT :)
But in this case, i have done all i could think of with no (noticable)
results.
>One of the reasons TurboC is so fast is the low quality of the code it
>produces (did you ever looked at the machine code of the programs you
>run?) Borland C makes a much better job, and for a price: it only
>compiles twice as fast as DJGPP (TurboC compiles tenfold as fast). If
>you want much faster compilation, compile with -O0 (no optimizations at
>all) with DJGPP too.
Ok, TurboC sux. but comapre it with WTACOM ... (sorry)
One thing that slows down the compilation is the startup-seqeunce.
But when gcc is in RAM chache (e.g. when compiling all files in a big
project) it's a lot faster then Borland.
Anyway, i agree that DJGPP has the BEST optimization (Thanx DJ :), read
the WATCOM FAQ and you will see :)
-- Arash
_____ |\/\/\/|
/ \ _____________ | | _______________
\/\/ | | diz sux... \ | | | way too much |
| (c)(c) | ..he he cool| | (o)(o) | MTV dad! |
C .---_) | __________/ S _) \ ____________|
| |.___| / / | ,___| __/ /
| \__/ <__/ | / <____/
- Raw text -