From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id: <10206170113.AA18927@clio.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: DJGPP 2.04 performance & size
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 20:13:14 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il (Eli Zaretskii)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1020616092030.26367O-100000@is> from "Eli Zaretskii" at Jun 16, 2002 09:20:59 AM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> I'm more interested in speed differences than in size differences.

Simple example, in my C:\DJGPP directory, elapsed time:

ls -lR > nul
                   elapsed     size
v2.00 beta 4     5 seconds    72,704
v2.03 refresh   13 seconds   129,024
v2.04 (cvs)     25 seconds   145,408