From: Mike Darrett Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: compiler efficiency Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:26:55 -0800 Organization: University of California, Davis Lines: 83 Message-ID: References: <9462ch$c77dg$1 AT ID-57378 DOT news DOT dfncis DOT de> NNTP-Posting-Host: runner.ucdavis.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: woodrow.ucdavis.edu 979871218 2687 169.237.105.37 (19 Jan 2001 02:26:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet AT ucdavis DOT edu NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 02:26:58 +0000 (UTC) X-Sender: ez073236 AT runner DOT ucdavis DOT edu In-Reply-To: <9462ch$c77dg$1@ID-57378.news.dfncis.de> To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp 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 Yes, I am quite impressed with the DJGPP implementation of gcc... unfortunately, gcc/g++ on my Mandrake Linux 7.2 made an executable which was about the same speed as the Borland C++ 5.5 code. (Actually I'm still recovering from this since Mandrake killed my C and D Win98 partitions (although I can access them from /mnt/win_c and /mnt/win_d, strangely enough...)) I *would* use DJGPP for future development, but... does it support Windows apps with OpenGL? Borland C++ 5.5 does, and... well, even if it is a bit slower, might have to settle for second best in this case... Btw, in response to an earlier post about alignment, I forced BCC5.5 to align on 8-byte boundaries and still no faster... Thanks for the thoughts Mike On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Alexei A. Frounze wrote: > Believe me GCC is quite good at optimization (well, when you helped it with > nice algorithm and source). > Around a year ago I had a bet in this NG that I can make a faster > implementation of my texture mapper in C+ASM mix rather than nearly plain C. > But in fact, eventually I got nearly the same thing when used 100% of GCC > capabilities and no extra ASM at all (well, probably just 1 or 2 ASM > instructions which is not a lot :). I was also wondered by the fact that GCC > beats Watcom. I've thought that Watcom is one of best C compilers before I > got GCC. But when I saw than my 3d-engine comiled by Watcom is about twice > as slow as compiled by GCC... > > :) > > Happy coding with GCC! > -- > Alexei A. Frounze > alexfru [AT] chat [DOT] ru > frounze [AT] ece [DOT] rochester [DOT] edu > http://alexfru.chat.ru > http://members.xoom.com/alexfru/ > http://welcome.to/pmode/ > > "Mike Darrett" wrote in message > news:Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 21 DOT 0101172014390 DOT 7634-100000 AT sandman DOT ucdavis DOT edu... > > Hi guys, > > > > I was running some algorithm benchmarks on DJGPP vs Borland C++ 5.5, and > > was shocked to see that DJGPP outperformed Borland C++ on some stack > > tests. Using a linked list to simulate a stack, adding and removing 80,000 > > entries took 1.8 seconds on my AMDK6-2 350, but took 2.5 seconds on > > Borland C++, compiled without the -tW option (since it is a console app). > > > > Any ideas? Is Borland C++ using thunking to access memory? Is DJGPP simply > > more efficient? Would like to get any input before I try optimizing the > > code any further. > > > > This was a homework assignment, but was meant only to test different > > algorithms vs each other, and not vs other compilers. The homework > > assignment can be seen > > at: http://wwwcsif.cs.ucdavis.edu/~davis/110/prog1.html > > > > Thanks, > > > > Mike Darrett > > mrdarrett AT ucdavis DOT edu > > http://mdarrett.freeyellow.com > > > > Get a free Windows C++ compiler! With STL, OpenGL and DirectX support. > > http://www.borland.com/bcppbuilder/freecompiler/ > > > > > > > Mike Darrett mrdarrett AT ucdavis DOT edu http://mdarrett.freeyellow.com Get a free Windows C++ compiler! With STL, OpenGL and DirectX support. http://www.borland.com/bcppbuilder/freecompiler/