From: lhall AT rfk DOT com (Larry Hall) Subject: Re: Win 95 console business 6 Nov 1997 11:54:46 -0800 Message-ID: <2.2.32.19971106160345.009935a8.cygnus.gnu-win32@ma.ultranet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Peter Boncz , gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com At 01:43 PM 11/6/97 +0100, Peter Boncz wrote: >Hi there: > >Let me declare that I am totally uninterested i M$ bashing or holy wars, >but skimming over this message I saw the following remark: > >> And have you ever used VC++? It compiles faster and makes better code than >> gcc does (last time I looked) and it has a far nicer environment. > >My question to the net community: is this true, and how much is the >difference?? Has anyone compared the two on NT or even Win95? > >I know that the cygwin library adds overhead on top of WIN32 calls, >but apart from that, if you just look at a program spending CPU time >on reading/writing memory arrays and the like (i.e. little OS calls), >what kind of performance difference typically comes out of >the same program being compiled with gcc -O3 and optimizing VC++? > >I mean, I always thought that gcc -O3 was pretty competitive, at >least that is my experience with gcc on solaris in comparison >with the sun cc/CC. > I've no experience with this myself but if I remember some other people's similar pursuits from the past correctly, differences where mostly of the type that could be shifted one way or the other by setting a few more flags or altering values of existing flags. I came away with the impression that gcc/g++ was competitive with VC++, each with slight advantages in different areas. Someone else may have specifics that prove this not to be the case though.... Larry Hall lhall AT rfk DOT com RFK Partners, Inc. (781) 239-1053 8 Grove Street (781) 239-1655 - FAX Wellesley, MA 02181 - For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to "gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help".