Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/05/19/05:45:10
> I still stand by djgpp taking up lots of space- a fullish install takes up
> about 100 meg, of which approx. 50% is wasted due to the loads of small
> files and the essence of FAT16. I don't just mean the include files- they
This is way bigger than most people need, and yes there are a lot of
small files, but back when there weren't, people complained that
things were missing. Sigh.
> I also stand by the slow compile time and slow running time due to crap
> optimization,
No portable compiler produces better code than a platform-specific and
hand-optimized compiler. Fact of life.
GCC is big, and you only get good compile times with careful system
optimization. I can compile gcc itself in about 16 minutes, which is
pretty fast. DOS Quake built with gcc on a quad CPU alpha builds
(from scratch!) in about 20 seconds.
> is that djgpp is a straightish port of gcc, which doesn't have pentium
> optimization yet- so no scheduling of floating point and no pairing of
Newly released! The PCG has a djgpp port of their pentium-optimized
gcc.
> use the c++ libraries, and isn't it the case that things written with
> djgpp's c++ libraries are not allowed to be used commercially without
> licence or something? I read something about it somewhere, once, (goes
If you use the gnu-specific C++ library (-lgxx), yes. If you use the
ANSI standard C++ library (-lstdcxx), no.
> Anyway, YES I do bash djgpp a bit now, but it was excellent when I was
> learning c++, and who cared about speed then? If it ran I was happy! Also I
Hey, it it made you happy at one time, I'm happy. DJGPP may not be
perfect for everyone, but by being free, you at least have the option
of trying it and seeing if it's right for you.
> post, and I didn't incorrectly punctuate my post etc so get your facts
You forgot two commas and a period around "etc" (sorry, I couldn't
resist :-)
DJ
- Raw text -