Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: DJGPP and Linux
Distribution:	world
From:	vischne AT ibm DOT net-nospam (root)
Organization:	The Light
References:	<Pine DOT LNX DOT 3 DOT 95 DOT 971106130125 DOT 16465D-100000 AT tabor DOT ta DOT jcu DOT cz>
MIME-Version:	1.0
NNTP-Posting-Host:	32.100.34.126
Message-ID:	<3462a807.0@news3.ibm.net>
Date:	7 Nov 97 05:32:55 GMT
Lines:	25
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

In article <Pine DOT LNX DOT 3 DOT 95 DOT 971106130125 DOT 16465D-100000 AT tabor DOT ta DOT jcu DOT cz>, 
hubicka AT ta DOT jcu DOT cz says...
>
>On Tue, 4 Nov 1997, Martynas Kunigelis wrote:
>
>> G. DEL ZZ FROM ADDR Resta wrote:
>> 
>> > So a lazy question : it will be better (faster) to use djgpp under
>> > win95 or gcc under linux, under the above assumptions of
>> > no-user-interface ?
>> > I just wonder if there is a relevant difference.
>> > Does anybody know ?
>> 
>> Linux Linux and Linux. gcc under Linux is faster than djgpp under DOS.
>> And Windows95 is not DOS.
>for example my simple program for writing bytes to file in buffered
>and unbuffered (byte by byte) way showed that buffered version is
>15 times faster than unbuffered and buffered version under DJGPP is
>exactly as fast as unbuffered under Linux. BTW buffered version under BC
>is slower than buffered under DJGPP, isn't that odd? is BC really so bad
>so its advantage of real mode is lost?
>
No, no, no.  GCC compiles programs as fast under DJGPP as under Linux, but
much slower under the cygwin32 gcc.

- Raw text -