Mail Archives: djgpp/2002/02/18/09:00:04
cesar tejeda wrote:
> I know a similar question is already in the FAQ,
> but, I have a little 386 and I notice a BIGGGG
> diference in compilation time for TurboC vs DJGPP.
>
> TurboC needs a lot less compile time for the same
> file(10 times less approx.) , and it is also a
Yes.
> FASSSTER environment when you compare it to RHIDE.
Never noticed it.
> It also uses a lot less memory.
This could be the problem you have not enough memory.
> ¿Why? ¿So high is the price we must pay for 32-bit
> programming?
Turbo C was created in the 90s with x86 in mind, you are comparing it with a
gcc version created recently and with cross platform features in mind.
You'll also notice that gcc can generate much better code than the old Turbo
C.
> I suppouse that efficiency is not one of the targets
> for gcc compiler.
>
> I'm very happy with DJGPP, but only when I try to use
> it in my old 386 I think that maybe it is better to
> program in TurboC in that environment.
>
> My 386 has only 2MB memory, perhaps it is the worst
> environment where DJGPP has runned in.
> ;-)
Yes, 2 Mb of memory means you have only 1 Mb in the extended area, and with
luck 1.5 Mb free, this isn't enough to even load RHIDE without starting to
swap. Consider using at least 8 Mb and older tools, gcc 2.7.2 or 2.8.1 as
example.
BTW, the FAQ talks about it.
SET
--
Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET). (Electronics Engineer)
Visit my home page: http://welcome.to/SetSoft or
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/6552/
Alternative e-mail: set AT computer DOT org set AT ieee DOT org
Address: Curapaligue 2124, Caseros, 3 de Febrero
Buenos Aires, (1678), ARGENTINA Phone: +(5411) 4759 0013
- Raw text -