Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Message-ID: <37C01A9F.136ABAB@di.fct.unl.pt> Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 16:43:27 +0100 From: Nuno Bandeira Organization: Faculty of Science and Technology / New University of Lisbon X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Subject: Re: How efficient is the g++ compipler in cygwin? References: <37BF5F4E DOT 9E1862F1 AT engmail DOT uwaterloo DOT ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Leo, Leo Jingyu LEE wrote: > I have compiled the same program using both VC++ 6.0 (release version) > and g++ in cygwin, and found that the g++ version takes about three > times as much time as the VC++ version to run. The program is basically > computionally intensive with some file reading/writing. Any commments > on this? I have the same problem but it looks to me that it is a more general efficiency problem. How fast is your cygwin on other operations, like listing a folder with a lot of files (ls -l /windows, for example) ? For me its also a lot slower than running dir c:\windows in command.com. And lets not mention executing bash scripts... Anyway, if I have to choose, I'll still go for cygwin. Best regards, --- Nuno Bandeira nb AT di DOT fct DOT unl DOT pt -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com