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
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From:	"Hans Horn" <hannes AT 2horns DOT com>
Subject:	Re: Comparative Performance of C++ Compilers (including gcc cygming special)
Date:	Tue, 13 Apr 2004 08:36:32 -0700
Lines:	28
Message-ID:	<c5h1k7$cl$1@sea.gmane.org>
References:	<c5gkcl$m1c$1 AT sea DOT gmane DOT org> <407C0198 DOT 4000707 AT cs DOT york DOT ac DOT uk>
X-Complaints-To:	usenet AT sea DOT gmane DOT org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host:	p1.almaden.ibm.com
X-Newsreader:	Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1209

Quite interesting indeed!

Are there other benchmarks around that compare gcc3.x, gcc3.x (cygwin), etc
against the gcc2.9x vintage?

H.
"chris" <caj AT cs DOT york DOT ac DOT uk> wrote in message
news:407C0198 DOT 4000707 AT cs DOT york DOT ac DOT uk...
> Alex Vinokur wrote:
>
> >        ========================================
> >        Comparative Performance of C++ Compilers
> >        C/C++ Performance Tests
> >        =========================================
> >
> >
> >
> <snip>
>
> While this is quite interesting, it seems to me you aren't really
> running these programs for long enough for us to be able to see what
> differences are due to startup time and due to runtime. How about a
> couple of extra jobs, one of which runs for 1 minute and one for 2?
>
>
>




--
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 -