To: Stephen Turnbull Cc: wrh AT placer1 DOT wimsey DOT com, djgpp AT sun DOT soe DOT clarkson DOT edu Subject: Re: Math Emulator Date: Sun, 25 Dec 94 10:03:11 +0200 From: "Eli Zaretskii" > I don't really understand why there's such a large performance hit, > since most compilation is digital in nature, but it may be that the > disk is fairly slow (28ms vs 14ms on the office machine). It might be Any disk cache installed? If it is, then the disk access time should have only a small effect on the compilation time. Did you check the BIOS settings on the SX? Vendors sometimes set them at ``safe'' values which might include unnecessary wait states etc. I doubt it would explain a fourfold increase in runtime, though. Overall, I'm amazed at the effect of the fp processor on what I would assume does no floating point. acmq AT alpha DOT coe DOT ufrj DOT br (Antonio Carlos Moreirao de Queiroz) writes: > And this with 50 MHz 486 machines... > I cant't imagine what a compiler is doing when it takes so much > time to compile something. Some gross inefficiency is evident. > My approach in developing programs to be compiled with djgpp > (or any other C compiler... All are too inefficient) is to develop > everything in Turbo Pascal and then translate to C when only small > details are missing. It is faster... Turbo Pascal 3, no doubt ;-). On a 50 MHz 486DX should compile at about 250 lines/second when optimizations are enabled. That would make Ghostscript what, about 2 1/4 *million* lines?? I would say there indeed *is* something grossly inefficient in the way that machine is configured, Steve. Could it be the multitasking or something else DV/X-connected?