X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mailnull set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
Date:	Mon, 18 Feb 2002 15:43:17 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	=?iso-8859-1?q?cesar=20tejeda?= <cesar_tejeda_her AT yahoo DOT es>
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: TurboC vs DJGPP in efficiency.
In-Reply-To:	<20020218122544.16460.qmail@web20805.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1020218153744.5449E-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by delorie.com id g1IDi9A23808
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Mon, 18 Feb 2002, =?iso-8859-1?q?cesar=20tejeda?= wrote:

> TurboC needs a lot less compile time for the same
> file(10 times less approx.)

TC is a much simpler compiler, and does much less optimizations.  
Therefore its runtime performance is generally much worse than the code 
produced by DJGPP.

> and it is also a FASSSTER environment when you compare it to RHIDE.

What exactly do you see in RHIDE that is significantly slower that the 
Borland's IDE?

> It also uses a lot less memory.

Nobody writes protected-mode programs for 2MB machines.  GCC is a memory 
hog, so you need at least 8MB for reasonable performance.

> ¿Why? ¿So high is the price we must pay for 32-bit 
> programming?

I don't see any price.

> I suppouse that efficiency is not one of the targets
> for gcc compiler.

Yes, it is.

> My 386 has only 2MB memory, perhaps it is the worst
> environment where DJGPP has runned in.
> ;-)

That's a bit too low, indeed.

- Raw text -