X-pop3-spooler:	POP3MAIL 2.1.0 b 4 980420 -bs-
To:	Marc Lehmann <pcg AT goof DOT com>
Cc:	Misha <vulcao AT netvision DOT net DOT il>, beastium <beastium-list AT Desk DOT nl>
Subject:	Re: PGCC's optimizations (continued)
References:	<35ADAA27 DOT E1FA6487 AT netvision DOT net DOT il> <19980716221729 DOT 04754 AT cerebro DOT laendle>
Mime-Version:	1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.108)
From:	Florian Weimer <fw AT cygnus DOT stuttgart DOT netsurf DOT de>
Date:	17 Jul 1998 06:56:06 +0200
In-Reply-To:	Marc Lehmann's message of "Thu, 16 Jul 1998 22:17:29 +0200"
Message-ID:	<m3sok1849l.fsf@deneb.cygnus.stuttgart.netsurf.de>
X-Mailer:	Gnus v5.6.23/XEmacs 20.4 - "Emerald"
Sender:	Marc Lehmann <pcg AT goof DOT com>
Status:	RO
Lines:	17

Marc Lehmann <pcg AT goof DOT com> writes:

> > BTW, has anyone ever done a comparison of the same code under PGCC
> > and DOS/Win95 compilers (VC++ 5.0, Watcom C/C++, Symantec, Borland,
> > Metaware, etc...)?
> > I had some difficulties porting my own code but I am working on it now. As
> > soon as I have results I will post them here.
> 
> cool! Be sure to run your programs under Win95, for an additional
> speed advantage ;->

I've done some benchmarking recently, not to compare compilers (well,
I've also noticed the speed decrease at higher optimization levels
with egcs), but to compare operating systems.  I don't know how MS
managed to do this, but the VMM implementation of Windows 95 is really
broken. (Look at http://www1.stuttgart.netsurf.de/~fw/hint.html)  Of
course, we all knew this already...

- Raw text -