From: tweety AT Torino DOT ALPcom DOT it (Jurgen Schwietering)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: gcc compiles so slow?
Date: 15 Dec 1996 18:17:11 GMT
Organization: ALPcom - The Network Provider
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <591fb7$a2@galileo.polito.it>
References: <58s98p$460 AT galileo DOT polito DOT it> <32B22D13 DOT 5E7D AT cs DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: monviso.alpcom.it
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

John M. Aldrich (fighteer AT cs DOT com) wrote:
: With only 8 MB of RAM, you probably can't afford to increase your cache
: too much, nor install a ramdrive, so you pretty much have to live with
: this overhead.
: 
: HOWEVER, once you get past the initial cost of loading the tools, DJGPP
: is faster than any other 32-bit compiler with the same code.  Try
: comparing the compilation speeds of a fifty-thousand line project
: between the two compilers, and you'll see the difference.  "Hello,
: world"-type programs are really poor examples for any kind of performace
: testing.  ;)

OK, I stocked up my computer to 24 MB, installed a 4MB RAMDRIVE, 12MB
SMARTDRV, got the latest versions of everything (the ...1 revisions).
It compiles quite fast now, in any case it would be nice to have the
'precompiled-header-option' which could be an valuable improvement of gcc.
Anyone tried this to implement in gcc? I compiled some large stuff with
the rhide ide, which is really nice: it looks so borland ;-), but I guess
that user support will be 10x better than borland double trouble
(pay money -> get problems).

Now I will get back to djgpp and try some wired stuff (hard interrupts,
where borland makes a really bad figure if you use 386 code and longs:
they do not save eax, ebx,..., you gain really nice problems).

Thanks
Jurgen