From: Roberto Henriquez Laurent <shl24634 AT alumnos DOT inf-cr DOT uclm DOT es>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Speed of DJGPP?
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 10:10:14 +0200
Organization: Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <33967466.F310303A@alumnos.inf-cr.uclm.es>
References: <3 DOT 0 DOT 16 DOT 19970605193200 DOT 284f51ae AT hem1 DOT passagen DOT se>
NNTP-Posting-Host: est271.mag-cr.uclm.es
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk

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. 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.
>
> Am I doing something wrong, or is DJGPP just slower?
>
    Try to follow the instructions found in the FAQ about that matter. I
did and could see how the same program compiled noticeably faster in my
486/66 than in a friend's P100...    These instructions are to place
your temp dir in a big RAM drive, and have a big disk cache, basically.

> Is there somewhere I can find timings of compile-time on diffrent
> computers
> optimized for maximum speed, so that I can compare?
>
> //Peter
> // Blizzar -- blizzar AT hem1 DOT passagen DOT se -- http://hem1.passagen.se/dnt
>
>
> ***************************************************************************
>
> Don't tell me about the answer, 'cause then another one will come
> along soon
> I don't believe you have the answer, I've got ideas too
> But if you got enough naivity, and you got conviction
> then the answer is perfect for you!
>
> // Bad Religion - Generator, The Answer
> ***************************************
> ************************************