Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Message-ID: <407C6C78.3050201@cs.york.ac.uk> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 23:40:56 +0100 From: Chris Jefferson User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alex Vinokur CC: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Comparative Performance of C++ Compilers (including gcc cygming special) References: <407C0198 DOT 4000707 AT cs DOT york DOT ac DOT uk> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Alex Vinokur wrote: >"chris" wrote in message news:407C0198 DOT 4000707 AT cs DOT york DOT ac DOT uk... > > >>Alex Vinokur wrote: >> >> >> >>> ======================================== >>> Comparative Performance of C++ Compilers >>> C/C++ Performance Tests >>> ========================================= >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>While this is quite interesting, it seems to me you aren't really >>running these programs for long enough for us to be able to see what >>differences are due to startup time and due to runtime. >> >> > >How can we know how long the startup time is? > > > OK, I'll explain my thinking. My understanding of cygwin suggests to me that when we are not performing any kind of system-based work (ie when we are just sorting vectors, calculating maths, the kind of deep computational work) there should be little difference between mingw32 and cygwin. I'm away from my cygwin installation at the moment, but when I get back to it I intend to test that I think :) Chris -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/