From:	Mike Darrett <ez073236 AT mailbox DOT ucdavis DOT edu>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	compiler efficiency
Date:	Wed, 17 Jan 2001 20:15:06 -0800
Organization:	University of California, Davis
Lines:	27
Message-ID:	<Pine.GSO.4.21.0101172014390.7634-100000@sandman.ucdavis.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	sandman.ucdavis.edu
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Trace:	woodrow.ucdavis.edu 979791312 4041 169.237.105.36 (18 Jan 2001 04:15:12 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:	usenet AT ucdavis DOT edu
NNTP-Posting-Date:	Thu, 18 Jan 2001 04:15:12 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender:	ez073236 AT sandman DOT ucdavis DOT edu
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Hi guys,

I was running some algorithm benchmarks on DJGPP vs Borland C++ 5.5, and
was shocked to see that DJGPP outperformed Borland C++ on some stack
tests. Using a linked list to simulate a stack, adding and removing 80,000
entries took 1.8 seconds on my AMDK6-2 350, but took 2.5 seconds on
Borland C++, compiled without the -tW option (since it is a console app).

Any ideas? Is Borland C++ using thunking to access memory? Is DJGPP simply
more efficient? Would like to get any input before I try optimizing the
code any further.

This was a homework assignment, but was meant only to test different
algorithms vs each other, and not vs other compilers. The homework
assignment can be seen
at: http://wwwcsif.cs.ucdavis.edu/~davis/110/prog1.html

Thanks,

Mike Darrett
mrdarrett AT ucdavis DOT edu
http://mdarrett.freeyellow.com

Get a free Windows C++ compiler! With STL, OpenGL and DirectX support.
http://www.borland.com/bcppbuilder/freecompiler/

- Raw text -