Message-ID: <3DCE0C20.3EF11E8E@yahoo.com>
From: CBFalconer <cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com>
Organization: Ched Research
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: DJGPP vs Cygwin
References: <3DC890CA DOT DFC6BE71 AT yahoo DOT com> <3dcde584_4 AT corp DOT newsgroups DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 42
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 07:51:57 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.90.167.188
X-Complaints-To: abuse AT worldnet DOT att DOT net
X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1036914717 12.90.167.188 (Sun, 10 Nov 2002 07:51:57 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 07:51:57 GMT
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Bill Cunningham wrote:
> "CBFalconer" <cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com> wrote in message
>
> > I have been using Cygwin to check portability, and recently tried
> > an experiment.  I compiled and run the same, largely compute
> > bound, program on both systems and timed their execution.  Both
> > were compiled with "gcc -W -Wall -O2 -ansi -pedantic -gstabs+",
> > using gcc 3.1 on DJGPP, and gcc 3.2 on Cygwin.  Both on the
> > identical machine, running W98.
> >
> > The program was considerably slower on Cygwin.  The execution
> > commands were:
> >
> > timerun a 30000
> > timerun a 10000    on DJGPP, using 4dos command processor
> >                    (timerun is an alias, involving timer command)
> >
> > time ./a 30000
> > time ./a 10000     on Cygwin, using bash 2.05
> >
> > I believe the majority of the Cygwin slowdown is due to the slower
> > loading (although the program is much smaller than under DJGPP)
> > and slower console output handling.  This is based on the
> > difference in times between the shorter and longer runs.
> >
... snip ...
> >
> Have you tried compiling the binaries under DJGPP and Cygwin to see which
> result is larger in bytes?

Had you bothered to snip you would have found that both your
questions were answered in the original posting, 1st and last
paragraphs left in above. Instead you quoted everything
unnecessarily in two replies.  While I do admire my own coding,
this is going too far :-)

-- 
Chuck F (cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com) (cbfalconer AT worldnet DOT att DOT net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
   <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>  USE worldnet address!