From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id: <10206162313.AA20553@clio.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: DJGPP 2.04
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 18:13:40 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il (Eli Zaretskii)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1020616092030.26367O-100000@is> from "Eli Zaretskii" at Jun 16, 2002 09:20:59 AM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> On Sun, 16 Jun 2002, Andrew Cottrell wrote:
> 
> > If it helps I can send a directory listing of my djgpp bin directory before
> > and after stripping the files.
> 
> I'm more interested in speed differences than in size differences.

I don't remember the details.  But something (grep on all files? find?
one of my apps?) which I did around a year ago was much slower.  I do
remember it was doing something on each file on the disk from the top
level directory (something like ...\* )

Not a good test, but ls .../* from my djgpp dir using an old (ancient v2.0b4)
djgpp ls was 4 times faster than the one built with recent cvs.