From: adalee AT sendit DOT sendit DOT nodak DOT edu (Adam W Lee)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: DJGPP compiler performance
Date: 22 Aug 1997 18:37:30 GMT
Organization: SENDIT - North Dakota's Educational Network
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <5tkm9a$4qn$2@news.sendit.nodak.edu>
References: <5tjvfg$nkb AT vse470 DOT vse DOT cz>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sendit-2.sendit.nodak.edu
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk


:     Hi DJGPP users !

:    I've a little question and hope that's not off-topic. I read many 
: times about quality of created executables by DJGPP v2.x+, which can 
: compare to code created by commercial products as Watcom, Borland, 
: Symantec, MVisual and other C++s in speed and size, but nowhere I read 
: about comparing performance(speed, compiling time) of DJGPP compiler and 
: linker with by example a newer version of Watcom C++. I and nobody from 
: my friends has no access to this expensive compiler to testing it. I'm 
: interested in any info about experience with Watcom's compiler&linker's 
: performance(with and without optimization).

:                             Thank you

:                                          Tremor

I don't have any actual tests, but I can tell you that DJGPP's code is
just as fast for me as Watcom 11.0's...  I, however, have a 486 so things
may be different on a Pentium since WC11 is supposed to do great
optimizations for the Pentium...  So what I can tell you is that DJGPP's
code is just as fast if not faster than other compilers, but it's
compilation time is a little bit slower (making lots of optimizations I
would presume.)

BTW - You are not Tremor/Dubius, are you?

--
  
  +--- --  --   -     -
  | [pHiXx/VorteX]
  : phixx AT usa DOT net

  :

  .