Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 19:32:22 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: Anand Singh Bisen <imbbpl AT mp DOT mp DOT nic DOT in>
cc: DJGPP Mailing List <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: Watcom 32
In-Reply-To: <00ae01bdc606$00ea4b20$156064a4@anandbis>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.980812193025.945D-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk


On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Anand Singh Bisen wrote:

>     I have just downloaded the POV Ray for DOS source code. Then i compiled
> the code with DJGPP and Watcom both and i found out that the EXE size of the
> Watcom version was smaller

Did you use the -s switch when compiling with DJGPP?  If not, your EXE 
file is about 3 times as large as it needs to be, since it includes a lot 
of debugging info.

> and the ray tracing with Watcom was really very
> noticable i.e 29 sec for a 1.20 sec  file. I wanted to know that if watcom
> supports intel style of assembly and it's also a 32 bit protected mode
> compiler and it is also better in many other ways like optimisation and code
> size then why is DJGPP so popular.

If you use -O2 optimization switch, DJGPP should produce code that runs 
as fast as Watcom's.