Date:	Mon, 9 Jun 1997 20:07:41 +0200 (MDT)
Message-Id:	<3.0.16.19970610012929.35c79ee0@hem1.passagen.se>
To:	combee AT cambridge DOT scr DOT slb DOT com (Leendert Combee)
From:	Peter Palotas <blizzar AT hem1 DOT passagen DOT se>
Subject:	Re: Speed of DJGPP?
Cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Mime-Version:	1.0

At 14.34 1997-06-09 +0100, you wrote:
>> Well, yeah, DJGPP uses more temp-files, I'm just wondering why not try and
>> solve that problem by integrating the diffrent compilers, preprocessors and
>> assemblers a  bit more, so that they don't have to use temporary files. 
>
>
>  That's simple: djgpp==gcc ported to dos. So, whatever gcc does, that's
>  what djgpp has to do as well - which means compilation & linking via
>  subsequent steps involving various programs. BTW, sure it helps if all
>  your code could compile/link in less than a second, but the real thing is
>  execution speed of the compiled code...
>

Yeah, I can agree with you here, since DJGPP produces very good (read
great) code, I'm not complaining. It's slower than other compilers during
compilation, but faster during execution of the compiled program. 
And making DJGPP incompatible with GCC sounds like a bad idea I guess. So,
well, we'll all just have to settle with a somewhat slow compiler, that
produces really fast code, and makes porting of code very easy, and is just
great. I can settle with that! =)

// Blizzar -- blizzar AT hem1 DOT passagen DOT se -- http://hem1.passagen.se/dnt

****************************************************************************
Don't tell me about the answer, 'cause then another one will come along soon
I don't believe you have the answer, I've got ideas too
But if you got enough naivity, and you got conviction
then the answer is perfect for you!

// Bad Religion - Generator, The Answer
****************************************************************************

- Raw text -