Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 13:28:06 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jan Hubicka To: Peter Palotas cc: Eli Zaretskii , djgpp AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: Speed of DJGPP? In-Reply-To: <3.0.16.19970606115220.356f2bc0@hem1.passagen.se> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk On Thu, 5 Jun 1997, Peter Palotas wrote: > At 11.19 1997-06-05 +0300, you wrote: > > > >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). > > Okay, then I misinterpreted what the guy wrote. This makes more sense. > Although, I presume DJGPP makes faster code than BC!? Although, it produces > about the same code as Watcom from what I have understood, so the question not exactly same. In more complex tests(like floating point mandelbot loop) is gcc still twice faster then wc. > is, why does it have to be slower? I personally think that it is sloweb because compiler is more unix oriented- has more separated phases. As far as I know watcomm has just one program that does whole compilation and outputs in object..gcc has separaed assembler,compiler etc...so it forces some temporary files. I am also not sure if watcomm uses something like RTL > > >> 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. > > Well, that friend just forms his oppinions without very many facts, and he > hasn't exactly put any money into getting Watcom either (bad boy). But I > myself don't like to perform illegal acts like that, and besides, I get my > upgrades much more easy than he does (if he even gets them at all). > > I don't think that the compile-time-diffrence is enough to switch to Watcom > either, I think that DJGPP is better in many ways, since it's easier to get > support, and to affect the product. You can get the sources and fix bugs > yourself if you have to (not very likely though), and it's ofcourse free, > and I strongly discourage pirating of such software. I agree... > Honza > > // 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 > **************************************************************************** > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Have you browsed my www pages? Look at: http://www.paru.cas.cz/~hubicka Koules-the game for Svgalib,X11 and OS/2, Xonix-the game for X11 czech documentation for linux index, original 2D computer art and funny 100 years old photos and articles are there!