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
Date:	Wed, 14 Apr 2004 03:35:16 -0300 (BRT)
From:	=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric_L=2E_W=2E_Meunier?= <1 AT pervalidus DOT net>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Comparative Performance of C++ Compilers (including gcc cygming special)
In-Reply-To:	<c5h1k7$cl$1@sea.gmane.org>
Message-ID:	<Pine.LNX.4.58.0404140326120.1753@pervalidus.dyndns.org>
References:	<c5gkcl$m1c$1 AT sea DOT gmane DOT org> <407C0198 DOT 4000707 AT cs DOT york DOT ac DOT uk> <c5h1k7$cl$1 AT sea DOT gmane DOT org>
X-Archive:	encrypt
MIME-Version:	1.0

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, Hans Horn wrote:

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

2.95.x has always been much faster for both C and C++ when
compared to 3.x.

At least on Linux, 3.4.0 prerelease was around 10% faster to
compile the 2.6.5-mm2 kernel when compared to 3.3.3:

2.6.5-mm2
---------
real 473.96 user 413.13 sys 33.94 (GCC 3.4.0)
real 524.27 user 476.70 sys 40.53
real 372.73 user 336.88 sys 30.90 (GCC 2.95.4)

Anyway, does anybody know if GCC in Cygwin is compiled with
--disable-checking ? gcc -v didn't return it, so it doesn't
look like. It seems using it causes compilation times to
decrease a lot.

-- 
http://www.pervalidus.net/contact.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 -