delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: djgpp/2001/02/24/03:03:21

Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 10:00:30 +0200
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: Joe Wright <joewwright AT earthlink DOT net>
Message-Id: <3405-Sat24Feb2001100029+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.6
CC: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <3A97302F.7561@earthlink.net> (message from Joe Wright on Sat, 24
Feb 2001 03:51:59 GMT)
Subject: Re: Now Slower?
References: <3A97302F DOT 7561 AT earthlink DOT net>
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

> From: Joe Wright <joewwright AT earthlink DOT net>
> Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
> Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 03:51:59 GMT
> 
> Several years ago I downloaded DJGPP V2 with gcc 2.7.2.1 and have been
> completely pleased and almost ecstatic about the whole thing.  Yesterday
> I downloaded the 'new' stuff with gcc at 2.952 and I find it creates
> larger executables which run slower.

How much larger and how much slower?  It is important to know the
approximate figures to tell you if what you see is expected or some
kind of installation/usage snafu.

Executables produced by GCC 2.95.2 and the latest Binutils are
supposed to be a bit larger, because their code and data are aligned
for more optimal run-time performance (speed), but the bloat should be
less than 10%.  If you forget to strip the executable, the bloat might
be much more, since GCC 2.9x produces much more debug info.  If you
didn't optimize, then anything could happen (I always compile with
optimizations, even when I'm debugging).

If you are talking about C++ code, the bloat is significant because
GCC 2.9x has _real_ C++ support, and C++ is a monstrously large
language.

As for speed, I find GCC 2.9x-produced binaries to run the same or
faster than those produced by 2.7.2.1.  If you used some specific
optimization switches with 2.7.2.1, I suggest to read section 14.2 of
the DJGPP FAQ list, it might give some insight.

> I've never had any trouble with the 'old' one.  Why should I use the
> 'new' one?

If you only use the compiler and Binutils, and never want or need any
other tools, you probably could not care less.  If you do use other
tools, like Make, Bash, GDB, etc., then you should upgrade because
otherwise you will have compatibility problems.

- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright © 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019