X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mailnull set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 15:43:17 +0200 (IST) From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz AT is To: =?iso-8859-1?q?cesar=20tejeda?= cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: TurboC vs DJGPP in efficiency. In-Reply-To: <20020218122544.16460.qmail@web20805.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by delorie.com id g1IDi9A23808 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 On Mon, 18 Feb 2002, =?iso-8859-1?q?cesar=20tejeda?= wrote: > TurboC needs a lot less compile time for the same > file(10 times less approx.) TC is a much simpler compiler, and does much less optimizations. Therefore its runtime performance is generally much worse than the code produced by DJGPP. > and it is also a FASSSTER environment when you compare it to RHIDE. What exactly do you see in RHIDE that is significantly slower that the Borland's IDE? > It also uses a lot less memory. Nobody writes protected-mode programs for 2MB machines. GCC is a memory hog, so you need at least 8MB for reasonable performance. > ¿Why? ¿So high is the price we must pay for 32-bit > programming? I don't see any price. > I suppouse that efficiency is not one of the targets > for gcc compiler. Yes, it is. > My 386 has only 2MB memory, perhaps it is the worst > environment where DJGPP has runned in. > ;-) That's a bit too low, indeed.