Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/06/09/05:40:22
On Thu, 5 Jun 1997, Peter Palotas wrote:
> At 11.19 1997-06-05 +0300, you wrote:
> >
> >On Wed, 4 Jun 1997, Peter Palotas wrote:
> >
> >> I read somewhere that DJGPP compiled a file at about half the time Borland
> >> C++ did. I can't agree with this, because I think DJGPP is really really
> >> slow in compiling files.
> >
> >No, it's the other way around: GCC is twice SLOWER than BC. I have
> >actually measured the compilation speed of these two compilers on some
> >code and saw the factor of two (BC is twice as fast as GCC).
>
> Okay, then I misinterpreted what the guy wrote. This makes more sense.
> Although, I presume DJGPP makes faster code than BC!? Although, it produces
> about the same code as Watcom from what I have understood, so the question
not exactly same. In more complex tests(like floating point mandelbot loop)
is gcc still twice faster then wc.
> is, why does it have to be slower?
I personally think that it is sloweb because compiler is more unix oriented-
has more separated phases. As far as I know watcomm has just one program
that does whole compilation and outputs in object..gcc has separaed
assembler,compiler etc...so it forces some temporary files.
I am also not sure if watcomm uses something like RTL
>
> >> And that is not only on my 486/66, also on my
> >> friends Pentiums and other computers. A friend of mine uses Watcom instead,
> >> just because he thinks DJGPP is too slow.
> >
> >Please ask your friend to support his opinion with some facts. AFAIK,
> >Watcom compiles a bit slower than BC, so the speed difference is still
> >about a factor of two. IMHO, this difference is not enough to justify
> >the massive waste of money to buy Watcom, but that's a matter of
> >opinion.
>
> Well, that friend just forms his oppinions without very many facts, and he
> hasn't exactly put any money into getting Watcom either (bad boy). But I
> myself don't like to perform illegal acts like that, and besides, I get my
> upgrades much more easy than he does (if he even gets them at all).
>
> I don't think that the compile-time-diffrence is enough to switch to Watcom
> either, I think that DJGPP is better in many ways, since it's easier to get
> support, and to affect the product. You can get the sources and fix bugs
> yourself if you have to (not very likely though), and it's ofcourse free,
> and I strongly discourage pirating of such software.
I agree...
>
Honza
>
> // Blizzar -- blizzar AT hem1 DOT passagen DOT se -- http://hem1.passagen.se/dnt
>
> ****************************************************************************
> Don't tell me about the answer, 'cause then another one will come along soon
> I don't believe you have the answer, I've got ideas too
> But if you got enough naivity, and you got conviction
> then the answer is perfect for you!
>
> // Bad Religion - Generator, The Answer
> ****************************************************************************
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you browsed my www pages? Look at:
http://www.paru.cas.cz/~hubicka
Koules-the game for Svgalib,X11 and OS/2, Xonix-the game for X11
czech documentation for linux index, original 2D computer art and
funny 100 years old photos and articles are there!
- Raw text -