Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID:	<30C9E24891FFD411B68A009027724CB702C04C77@eg-002-015.eglin.af.mil>
From:	Keen Wayne A Contr AFRL/MNGG <keenwa AT eglin DOT af DOT mil>
To:	"'cygwin AT cygwin DOT com'" <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	gcc 3.1 slower than 2.95?
Date:	Mon, 17 Jun 2002 09:31:58 -0500

You need to review the compile options for gcc-3.1, they have changed.
Important things like
you can now flag for pentium3 or pentium4, and that alone made a lot of
difference for me.
(By the way, for most modern Pentiums, I though designating pentiumpro was
faster)

As I said in my email to you, the work code I have tested, which does a lot
of scene generation
work, is about 10 - 15% faster with gcc-3.1 / Cygwin. The executable is much
larger, but
judicious use of strip can help out there.

Wayne Keen 

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -