Date:	Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:51:28 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Mike Darrett <ez073236 AT mailbox DOT ucdavis DOT edu>
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: compiler efficiency
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.GSO.4.21.0101172014390.7634-100000@sandman.ucdavis.edu>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1010118164953.7327B-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
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 Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Mike Darrett wrote:

> 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?

Did you try to look at the machine code in each case?  That might give 
you some clues.

Another possibility might be code and/or data alignment.  Latest versions 
of GCC and DJGPP do a good job there; does Borland come anywhere near?

- Raw text -