X-Authentication-Warning: kendall.sfbr.org: jeffw set sender to jeffw AT darwin DOT sfbr DOT org using -f Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 12:02:44 -0500 From: JT Williams To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: MAKEing Turbo Vision 1.1.3 Message-ID: <20011018120244.B21027@kendall.sfbr.org> Mail-Followup-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com References: <3BCB274A DOT 34F2631 AT inti DOT gov DOT ar> <3BCC49EC DOT 5FB4D8ED AT inti DOT gov DOT ar> <3995-Tue16Oct2001175743+0200-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <20011016130041 DOT A19158 AT kendall DOT sfbr DOT org> <20011017184410 DOT A919 AT mediacom DOT it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20011017184410.A919@mediacom.it>; from am@mediacom.it on Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 06:44:10PM +0200 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 -: > go32-v2 (without ramdisk or smartdrv) -: > ------------------------------------- -: > DPMI memory available: 5333Kb -: > DPMI swap space available: 7583Kb -: -: A really low memory condition. And with smartdrv loaded is even worse. -: Probably this invalidate the test. What test? I was interested to determine the effects of a ramdisk and a smartdrv cache on the configuration and compile times with *my* pathetic little machine. Any other interpretation of the numbers must first consider if the test conditions I described are relevant to the performance questions you have. In this case, I learned that when using gcc 3.0 I obtain the best performance if I let gcc have all the RAM I possibly can. OTOH, gcc 2.7.2.1 benefits from an appropriately-sized ram disk or disk cache. That's useful for me to know.