Xref: news2.mv.net comp.os.msdos.djgpp:6085 From: Arash Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: c:\Compiling............ Zzzzz..... :) Date: 17 Jul 1996 13:27:28 GMT Organization: Chalmers University of Technology Lines: 34 Message-ID: <4sipo0$877@nyheter.chalmers.se> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: sv31978.ios.chalmers.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Eli Zaretskii wrote: >Did you check the compilation speed against the standards described in >the DJGPP FAQ list? If not, please download the file v2/faq201b.zip from Yes, the FAQ helped me with many general programing problems (BTW thanx, without your FAQ i couldn't ever come so far. It helped me A LOT :) But in this case, i have done all i could think of with no (noticable) results. >One of the reasons TurboC is so fast is the low quality of the code it >produces (did you ever looked at the machine code of the programs you >run?) Borland C makes a much better job, and for a price: it only >compiles twice as fast as DJGPP (TurboC compiles tenfold as fast). If >you want much faster compilation, compile with -O0 (no optimizations at >all) with DJGPP too. Ok, TurboC sux. but comapre it with WTACOM ... (sorry) One thing that slows down the compilation is the startup-seqeunce. But when gcc is in RAM chache (e.g. when compiling all files in a big project) it's a lot faster then Borland. Anyway, i agree that DJGPP has the BEST optimization (Thanx DJ :), read the WATCOM FAQ and you will see :) -- Arash _____ |\/\/\/| / \ _____________ | | _______________ \/\/ | | diz sux... \ | | | way too much | | (c)(c) | ..he he cool| | (o)(o) | MTV dad! | C .---_) | __________/ S _) \ ____________| | |.___| / / | ,___| __/ / | \__/ <__/ | / <____/