X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mailnull set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f From: Hans-Bernhard Broeker Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: TurboC vs DJGPP in efficiency. Date: 18 Feb 2002 12:55:11 GMT Organization: Aachen University of Technology (RWTH) Lines: 36 Message-ID: References: <20020218122544 DOT 16460 DOT qmail AT web20805 DOT mail DOT yahoo DOT com> NNTP-Posting-Host: acp3bf.physik.rwth-aachen.de X-Trace: nets3.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE 1014036911 23884 137.226.32.75 (18 Feb 2002 12:55:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse AT rwth-aachen DOT de NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Feb 2002 12:55:11 GMT Originator: broeker@ To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com cesar tejeda wrote: > 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. That's an old and well-known fact. But it also has it's backside: Turbo-C's compiled programs themselves are a *lot* slower in many situation that what GCC generates. Especially if you happen to just need raw CPU power and lots of memory more than direct access to hardware registers. For short: the "Turbo" in TurboC only applies to compilation speed, but almost anti-applies to executable speed. > I suppouse that efficiency is not one of the targets for gcc > compiler. It is. But it's the efficiency of the compiled program, rather than the compilation process itself. That, and the traditions from the Unix worlds it sticks to a lot more strictly than TurboC. > My 386 has only 2MB memory, perhaps it is the worst environment > where DJGPP has runned in. ;-) Definitely not. It may be about the lowest it *still* is actively run in. But in earlier days, 386's with about that amount of memory were quite commonplace, even among the DJGPP core team. Esp. those 2MB are a serious problem as it comes to running DJGPP. 4MB and a clever cache+ramdrive strategy could make a world of difference, already. You're currently bottlenecked by the speed of your *harddrive* more than your CPU or GCC itself. -- Hans-Bernhard Broeker (broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de) Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.