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 13:55:56 -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: X-Archive: encrypt MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by delorie.com id i3EGua9k029638 On Wed, 14 Apr 2004, Dave Korn wrote: > > From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Frédéric L. W. Meunier > > Sent: 14 April 2004 07:35 > > > 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. > > > --disable-checking is the default. You only get a checking build of gcc > if you explicitly specify --enable-checking on the configure command line. > So cygming gcc should be a non-checking build. If it's, then configure is misleading. In 3.4.0 I see "default is no checking" In 3.3.3 "default is misc,tree,gc,rtlflag" -- 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/