Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 11:19:19 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: Peter Palotas <blizzar AT hem1 DOT passagen DOT se>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Speed of DJGPP?
In-Reply-To: <3.0.16.19970605193200.284f51ae@hem1.passagen.se>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970605111825.5841Q-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk


On Wed, 4 Jun 1997, Peter Palotas wrote:

> I read somewhere that DJGPP compiled a file at about half the time Borland
> C++ did. I can't agree with this, because I think DJGPP is really really
> slow in compiling files.

No, it's the other way around: GCC is twice SLOWER than BC.  I have
actually measured the compilation speed of these two compilers on some
code and saw the factor of two (BC is twice as fast as GCC).

> And that is not only on my 486/66, also on my
> friends Pentiums and other computers. A friend of mine uses Watcom instead,
> just because he thinks DJGPP is too slow.

Please ask your friend to support his opinion with some facts.  AFAIK,
Watcom compiles a bit slower than BC, so the speed difference is still
about a factor of two.  IMHO, this difference is not enough to justify
the massive waste of money to buy Watcom, but that's a matter of
opinion.

> Is there somewhere I can find timings of compile-time on diffrent computers
> optimized for maximum speed, so that I can compare?

The DJGPP FAQ lists numbers for compilation speed in section 7.1.  If
you get significantly lower speed with DJGPP, your system is set up
incorrectly (see section 3.9 of the FAQ for recommendations on how to
set up your system for optimal DJGPP performance).