Mail Archives: djgpp/2003/08/04/01:45:59
> From: "Klayhamn" <psycho AT isdn DOT net DOT il>
> Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
> Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 03:35:31 +0200
>
> > Unfortunately, TurboC isn't really playing the same game. For
> > starters, this program is C++, not C. That makes a *big* difference.
> > NOTE: Borland also has a C++ compiler, but none that bears version
> > number 3.0 and would be able to digest ANSI Standard C++ sources.
>
> Well i am using Borland's Turbo C 3.0 which IS able to digest ANSI c++
> sources..
> So we're talking about the same language/standard here and hre.
No, we aren't: Turbo C++ doesn't support anything close to the
monstrously large language defined by the latest ANSI C++ Standard.
It supports basic C++ features and old versions of the standard
classes, but not the bulk of the complexity introduced in the recent
years.
> > gpp -o Hello Hello.cpp
> > gpp -o Hello Hello.cpp
> >
> > your disk cache is in need of a tweak.
>
> It doesn't decreate compilation time at all,
> and i did exactly as the site instructed to set up disk caching.
Somthing is probably wrong with your system setup, but it's hard to
tell what exactly. Perhaps you have some antivirus software that
checks each program before it is being run, perhaps it's something
else. A trivial C++ source should take about 2-3 seconds on a machine
such as yours.
Try adding the -v switch to the compilation command line, and see what
phase of the compilation (preprocessing, parsing, assembly, or link)
takes the bulk of the time. That might give some useful hints.
Also, try compiling a much larger source and see what time do you get
there.
- Raw text -