Mail Archives: djgpp/1999/08/19/10:42:03
On 18 Aug 99, at 10:48, Johan Venter wrote:
> Campbell, Rolf [SKY:1U32:EXCH] <cp1v45 AT americasm01 DOT nt DOT com> wrote in message
> news:37B8292B DOT 174C1175 AT americasm01 DOT nt DOT com...
> > Johan Venter wrote:
> >
> > > Compileing a simple hello world program took 24 seconds with the
> following
> > > command line:
> > >
> > > gcc test.c -o test.exe
> >
> > What system configuration are you using? Win95/98/NT/DOS? How much
> RAM?
> > Processor speed? If in pure DOS, do you have a RAM disk or disk caching
> > software?
> > I'm using 2.95 and on my machine it doesn't seem to take any longer
> than
> > v2.8.1 if I don't specify "-O2".
>
> I'm running a P166 with 32MB of RAM and Windows 98.
> GCC-2.8.1 was always pretty snappy, even if I compiledwith all the
> optimizations and speed/space trade off options.
>
> GCC-2.95 compiles a lot faster than 2.8.1, but the linking takes ages, as I
> said before, while running "collect2".
>
It's bug in collect2 which is triggered only if root directory of some
drive is on DOS path (eg. C:\ ) . In this case collect2 tries to
access("C:\\/ld.exe",0)
(bug visible) which for unknown reason waits a lot (perhaps big
thanks to Bill Gates) instead of simply failing. I'll try to fix it in port of
gcc-2.95.1. The binaries I have made available are not fixed yet.
Possible workaround curently is not to have root directory of drives in
DOS path.
Andris
- Raw text -