Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 14:37:16 +0100 (MET)
From: Mark Habersack <grendel AT ananke DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl>
Reply-To: grendel AT ananke DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl
To: Leath Muller <leathm AT gbrmpa DOT gov DOT au>
cc: "William D. Kirby" <wdkirby AT ix12 DOT ix DOT netcom DOT com>, djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Speed Optimization is getting worse with V2.01
In-Reply-To: <32757AF2.1799@gbrmpa.gov.au>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.95.961029143511.7151C-100000@ananke.amu.edu.pl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, Leath Muller wrote:

>Ummm...I only have one thing to say about this:
>
>BWAHAHAHAAAA!
>
>Sorry... :)
>
>Would you mind posting an example of where exactly Borland is faster
>than DJGPP? RTM32 is shocking at anything serious I have tried to do
>with
>it...let alone the fact that it's almost impossible to get the easist
>dpmi functions to work effectively. All this on top of the fact that
>Borlands compiler version 4.5 sucks at producing code - and when you
>turn
>on optimizations, its absolutely terrible! And version 5.0 is much,
>much worse... (I didn't buy this, my flat mate did... sucker...)
It's even worse than you think. BC 5.0 (4.52 also, I think) has a special
'front end' for the compiler which is supposed to optimize code for Pentiums.
Well, it optimizes so good that my programs run about 15-25% slower when
optimized (on Pentium, of course). Comments? I don't think...

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Stand straight, look me in the eye and say goodbye
Stand straight, we drifted past the point of reasons why,
Yesterday starts tommorow, tommorow starts today,
The problems always seem to be
  we're picking up the pieces on the ricochet
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ http://ananke.amu.edu.pl/~grendel \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/