From: "Johan Venter" <jventer AT writeme DOT com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 990815134023 DOT 1935a-100000 AT is> <L2St3.129$ei1 DOT 493 AT newsfeeds DOT bigpond DOT com> <37B8292B DOT 174C1175 AT americasm01 DOT nt DOT com>
Subject: Re: gcc-2.95 and binutils-2.9
Lines: 34
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Message-ID: <sCuu3.1497$ei1.2501@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 10:48:46 +1000
NNTP-Posting-Host: 139.134.161.233
X-Trace: newsfeeds.bigpond.com 934966808 139.134.161.233 (Wed, 18 Aug 1999 19:00:08 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 19:00:08 EST
Organization: Telstra BigPond Internet Services (http://www.bigpond.com)
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

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".

--
Johan Venter
ICQ 3643877
surf.to/djgppig