Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 16:24:12 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: salvador <salvador AT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: MAKEing Turbo Vision 1.1.3
In-Reply-To: <3BCD8E62.24652BA7@inti.gov.ar>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1011017162117.17515D-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, salvador wrote:

> I agree with you DJ, but it looks like regular switchs (-O2 for example)
> have a bad impact on old CPU models when using gcc 3.x.
> I didn't run my battery of benchmarks yet so I can give a detailed
> conclusion, but the new C++ library and code generation rules made my editor
> 20% bigger (we are talking about more than 200 Kb of increase) and 11%
> slower.

It is very dangerous to compare C++ code compiled by GCC 3.x and any
older version.  GCC 3.x now supports much more of the C++ standard than 
older versions did; since Standard C++ is a *monstrously* large and 
complex language, it should come as no surprise that full support for it 
comes at a price.

A much better comparison would be with a C program, not a C++ program.