Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 20:23:51 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199709240323.UAA02048@adit.ap.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: Orlando Andico <orly AT dilnet DOT upd DOT edu DOT ph>,
        firewind <firewind AT metroid DOT dyn DOT ml DOT org>
From: Nate Eldredge <eldredge AT ap DOT net>
Subject: Re: DJGPP and optimized code
Cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

At 07:31  9/23/1997 +0800, Orlando Andico wrote:
>On 22 Sep 1997, firewind wrote:
>
>..
>> DJGPP does not and will -never- add things not already present in the stock
>> gcc.
>..
>> How about we fart in their general direction anyway? If you think MSVC is
>> great, by all means, switch. Personally, I'll stick with gcc.
>
>I agree that in general, sticking with gcc is smarter. But will DJGPP
>_ever_ adopt anything from egcs? I know it's experimental, but the
>performance improvements are quite impressive (I've attached a simple
>benchmark that I've made).
>
>There is a DJGPP binary on www.goof.com; is this ever going to be part of
>the standard distribution? anyway, below are the results of the
>CPU-intensive test I did.
>
>
>---
>
>Test procedure:
>
>The program used was the publicly available ISO MPEG layer 1, 2, and 3
>decoder (CD 11172-5 of April 1994) with modifications by Fraunhofer-IIS
>(version 4.1).
>
>A 32-kbps, 32kHz single-channel MPEG-1 layer II file was decoded, and the
>wave output dumped to /dev/null. Time consumed by this procedure was
>measured with the `time' command.
>
>All tests were performed on an unloaded Red Hat Linux 4.2 system (kernel
>2.0.30, Pentium-optimized) with a 100-MHz Pentium processor and 24MB of
>core. The test is not I/O intensive because the MPEG source file is small
>(<1MB) and output was directed to the null device.
This will be I/O intensive on some platforms. Under DJGPP, for instance,
writes to the NUL device will still go through DOS, requiring a mode switch
and God-knows-how-much DOS overhead.

Nate Eldredge
eldredge AT ap DOT net