Mail Archives: djgpp/2010/11/26/21:00:22
Hi,
On Nov 26, 5:19=A0am, philippe <philippe DOT meyn DOT DOT DOT AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
>
> thanks for your response.
> so I use DJGPP 2.03 with gcc 3.4.1.
3.4.1 ?? At least use 3.4.4, which is latest DJGPP has available for
that branch. ;-)
I know 2.03p2 is "stable", but you could also try 2.04 "beta". Not
sure if it will help, though, but personally I would recommend it, at
least temporarily to test.
> when I compile with gcc4.4.4 I
> have a error, gcc 4.2.3 it's OK
What error? I do vaguely recall that G++ 4.2.3 was the last to have
some "backwards" compatible headers (for some odd reason).
> but I have no amelioration.
No improvement? Did you use -mtune or -march at all?? BTW, last I
checked, GCC did support "pentium_m".
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/i386-and-x86_002d64-Options.html
> CWSDPMI r5 and freedos kernel 2036.
Try r7 and 2038 (at least worth an attempt). 2039 is also available
(and with COUNTRY.SYS support again, like 2037) but "unstable" (a few
rare regressions).
http://homer.rice.edu/~sandmann/cwsdpmi/csdpmi7b.zip
http://sourceforge.net/projects/freedos/files/Kernel/2038/kernel2038-fat32-=
binary.zip/download
> I discovered that: When I used a call who is in another source file
> that my source file test then the program is very slow but when I put
> the call function in the same file that the source test then the
> program is very fast. Why?
Whole program optimization?? Try -fwhole-program and --combine with
your files. (Or manually go and insert "inline" or "static" in key
places.) I dunno, optimization is a mess. :-/
Oh, and BTW, please recompile without -O3 (not that you've mentioned
exactly what flags) since that often hinders instead of helps.
- Raw text -