X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
From:	Andrew Cottrell <andspam DOT at DOT swiftdsl DOT dot DOT com DOT dot DOT au AT unknown DOT addr>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: what are you running djgpp on?
Date:	Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:04:17 +1100
Organization:	HOME
Message-ID:	<tqnv50pv1c4eh2de8774a6ok8vrc5kjpau@4ax.com>
References:	<81f33a98 DOT 0403220228 DOT 76b111a9 AT posting DOT google DOT com>
X-Newsreader:	Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
MIME-Version:	1.0
Lines:	22
NNTP-Posting-Host:	202.154.115.197
X-Trace:	1080025009 news.syd.swiftdsl.com.au 27649 202.154.115.197
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

>It's interesting to note the differences in compiling speed when i
>updated each to allegro 4.03.   The make session was very long under
>the p75 (but the compiled examples ran very smoothly).  Works fine
>though.  I do have an oldish win2000 laptop but that runs mingw, and
>linux of course has gnu tools anyway.
What you are seeing is that as more RAM is used up in the compilation
process then the time goes up exponential (in most cases). As the
Allegro C++ code becomes more complex and later versions of GCC use
more RAM to compile the app the more the swap file is used. This
occurs with other compilers and will continue as time goes on. I
remember when I first used a 386 PC it could compile C code very fast,
but the compiler was not very smart and as such the resulting code was
not optimized compared to the current compilers.

>no big point here, just a nod of appreciation to the scalable and
>useful DJGPP package, and wondering if anyone has it on an even more
>modest machine - and what you've been writing with it recently.
As from other responses there are allot of old PC's still being used
with DJGPP which are not high enough spec to run Windows.


Andrew

- Raw text -