X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mailnull set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
Message-ID: <20020218122544.16460.qmail@web20805.mail.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 13:25:44 +0100 (CET)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?cesar=20tejeda?= <cesar_tejeda_her AT yahoo DOT es>
Subject: TurboC vs DJGPP in efficiency.
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To: <a4mmot$9p9t$1@as201.hinet.hr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

I know a similar question is already in the FAQ,
but, I have a little 386 and I notice a BIGGGG
diference in compilation time for TurboC vs DJGPP.

TurboC needs a lot less compile time for the same
file(10 times less approx.) , and it is also a
FASSSTER environment when you compare it to RHIDE.
It also uses a lot less memory.

¿Why? ¿So high is the price we must pay for 32-bit 
programming?

I suppouse that efficiency is not one of the targets
for gcc compiler.

I'm very happy with DJGPP, but only when I try to use
it in my old 386 I think that maybe it is better to
program in TurboC in that environment.

My 386 has only 2MB memory, perhaps it is the worst
environment where DJGPP has runned in.
;-)


_______________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Messenger
Comunicación instantánea gratis con tu gente.
http://messenger.yahoo.es