Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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:	<6.1.2.0.0.20041029195251.020f6c58@imap.myrealbox.com>
X-Sender:	tprince AT imap DOT myrealbox DOT com
Date:	Fri, 29 Oct 2004 19:57:38 -0700
To:	Ole Jacob Hagen <waterthrill AT yahoo DOT no>, cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From:	Tim Prince <tprince AT computer DOT org>
Subject:	Re: Need an older gcc version on my cygwin due to poor performance on gcc-3.x series.
In-Reply-To:	<418259FF.1070804@yahoo.no>
References:	<418259FF DOT 1070804 AT yahoo DOT no>
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-IsSubscribed:	yes

At 07:55 AM 10/29/2004, Ole Jacob Hagen wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I've compiled Octave-2.1.60 with gcc-3.3.3 successfully, but the 
>performance is pretty bad with gcc-3.3.3.
>
>The performance should of Octave is much better, when compiling it with 
>gcc-3.2.x instead.
>
>The reason might be that the memory allocator on gnu stdc++ has changed to 
>one which is several times slower,
>and therefore gives horrible performance on gcc-3.3 and gcc-3.4.
>
>Therefore it would be nice to have gcc-3.2.2-3 to my cygwin.
>
>So where can I find gcc-3.2.2-3 to my cygwin?

If you haven't built and tested the gcc of your choice on cygwin, how do 
you know it performs better?  What does the -3 mean in this context?  Maybe 
you're comparing performance between different platforms, or at least 
different gcc targets.


Tim Prince 


--
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 -