Mail Archives: djgpp/1998/02/28/00:16:22
From: | Vic <tudor AT cam DOT org>
|
Newsgroups: | comp.os.msdos.djgpp
|
Subject: | PGCC performance
|
Date: | Fri, 27 Feb 1998 23:52:24 +0200
|
Organization: | Communications Accessibles Montreal, Quebec Canada
|
Lines: | 31
|
Message-ID: | <34F73598.25E7@cam.org>
|
NNTP-Posting-Host: | dialup-696.hip.cam.org
|
Mime-Version: | 1.0
|
To: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com
|
DJ-Gateway: | from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
|
There have been some questions about PGCC, if it's worth it etc, so I'll
just post my findings. Remember a while ago the DJGPP vs watcom wars?
Thomas Djafari posted a little test program to see the performance of
the compiler. The test was a DCT jpeg like compressor working on a 2048
by 2048 (pretty big) array.
The initial data were:
Watcom 11.0 beta Pentium mode
25.3800 Seconds, 3037 millions clocks
18.1800 Seconds, 2179 millions clocks
DJGPP v 2.7.2.1
35.3846 Seconds, 4234 millions clocks
26.4835 Seconds, 3170 millions clocks
what I found (P133 16 megs RAM):
DJGPP PGCC 101
23.3516 Seconds, 3095 millions clocks
19.3407 Seconds, 2566 millions clocks
so, as you can see, PGCC IS worth it. It almost tops watcom pentium
performance and is a lot better than the normal GCC (Of course this
really depends on your situation, but it shows a bit the improvements
you might be looking at. here it's almost 30%)
--
--> http://www.cam.org/~tudor <--
- Raw text -