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
X-Injected-Via-Gmane:	http://gmane.org/
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From:	"Alex Vinokur" <alexvn AT connect DOT to>
Subject:	Re: gcc version 3.3.1 (cygming special)
Date:	Mon, 22 Sep 2003 21:15:44 +0300
Lines:	66
Message-ID:	<bkneiv$hm9$1@sea.gmane.org>
References:	<bklvpg$gqm$1 AT sea DOT gmane DOT org> <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 56 DOT 0309220138280 DOT 12411 AT slinky DOT cs DOT nyu DOT edu> <bkmmsk$p4l$1 AT sea DOT gmane DOT org> <20030922115830 DOT GL9981 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <3F6F09C5 DOT 2030505 AT cs DOT york DOT ac DOT uk>
X-Complaints-To:	usenet AT sea DOT gmane DOT org
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Newsreader:	Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106

"chris" <caj AT cs DOT york DOT ac DOT uk> wrote in message news:3F6F09C5 DOT 2030505 AT cs DOT york DOT ac DOT uk...
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 02:36:32PM +0300, Alex Vinokur wrote:
> >
> >
> >>------ Cygwin ------
> >>$ gcc foo.c -o foo1.exe
> >>$ gcc foo.c  -mno-cygwin -o foo2.exe
> >>
> >>------ MinGW ------
> >>$ gcc foo.c -o foo3.exe
> >>
> >>1. What is the difference between foo1.exe and foo2.exe?
> >>2. Is there any difference between foo2.exe and foo3.exe?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Call cygcheck foo[123].exe.
> >
> >
> Just to add to this. For whatever reasons, I have found mingw
> executables to be slightly, but measurably faster (this was done some
> time ago).

Not always.

Comparative performance tests were carried out
  using the same compiler (gcc/g++/gpp 3.2)
  in different environments (CYGWIN, MINGW, DJGPP)
  on Windows 2000 Professional.


Different methods of copying files were tested :

  ------ C methods ------
  Method C-1   : Functions getc() and putc()
  Method C-2   : Functions fgetc() and fputc()

  ------ C++ methods ------
  Method CPP-1 : Operators >> and <<
  Method CPP-2 : Methods get() and put()
  Method CPP-3 : Methods sbumpc() and sputc()
  Method CPP-4 : Method sbumpc() and operator <<
  Method CPP-5 : Method rdbuf() and operator <<


The results for CYGWIN and DJGPP are consistent, in particular:
  C-methods C-1 and C-2 are faster than C++-methods CPP-1, CPP-2, CPP-3.

Whereas it seems that C-methods C-1 and C-2 on MINGW are too slow, e.g.,
  C-methods C-1 and C-2 are slower than C++-methods CPP-2, CPP-3.

  The summary results are can be seen at
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bifvr9%248qbgl%241%40ID-79865.news.uni-berlin.de

[snip]

   =====================================
   Alex Vinokur
     mailto:alexvn AT connect DOT to
     http://mathforum.org/library/view/10978.html
   =====================================




--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -