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 Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 03:35:16 -0300 (BRT) From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric_L=2E_W=2E_Meunier?= <1 AT pervalidus DOT net> To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Comparative Performance of C++ Compilers (including gcc cygming special) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <407C0198 DOT 4000707 AT cs DOT york DOT ac DOT uk> X-Archive: encrypt MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, Hans Horn wrote: > Are there other benchmarks around that compare gcc3.x, gcc3.x > (cygwin), etc against the gcc2.9x vintage? 2.95.x has always been much faster for both C and C++ when compared to 3.x. At least on Linux, 3.4.0 prerelease was around 10% faster to compile the 2.6.5-mm2 kernel when compared to 3.3.3: 2.6.5-mm2 --------- real 473.96 user 413.13 sys 33.94 (GCC 3.4.0) real 524.27 user 476.70 sys 40.53 real 372.73 user 336.88 sys 30.90 (GCC 2.95.4) Anyway, does anybody know if GCC in Cygwin is compiled with --disable-checking ? gcc -v didn't return it, so it doesn't look like. It seems using it causes compilation times to decrease a lot. -- http://www.pervalidus.net/contact.html -- 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/