www.delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
From: | e8725229 AT stud1 DOT tuwien DOT ac DOT at (godzilla) |
Newsgroups: | comp.os.msdos.djgpp |
Subject: | Re: I don't understand djgpp's optimizations |
Date: | Fri, 04 Apr 97 08:55:36 GMT |
Organization: | Vienna University of Technology, Austria |
Lines: | 18 |
Message-ID: | <5i2fm8$b34_001@tuwien.ac.at> |
References: | <33440E51 DOT 6AE AT imaginet DOT fr> |
NNTP-Posting-Host: | tubiomed.tuwien.ac.at |
To: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com |
DJ-Gateway: | from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp |
In article <33440E51 DOT 6AE AT imaginet DOT fr>, DoLooP <kst AT imaginet DOT fr> wrote: >I'm new in c coding, and i'm trying djggp because a lot of demoscoder >says that this is THE best compiler. So i try a simple 50000 loop with a >calcul in it. i've done a time mesure and the code generated is really >NOT speed comparing to what the watcom c gives to me. it run 2 times >better in watcom flat mode. i've used -o2 -forcemem -forceaddr >-fstrengh... flags. (and perhaps some other one). could someone help >me ? > > >kst AT imaginet DOT fr i'm using '-O3 -ffast-math -funroll-loops -fomit-frame-pointer' and the runtime-difference to watcom-generated code is usually between 10 and 20 % (my loops are huge and no so simple) nonetheless i prefer djgpp :-) greetings godzilla
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |