Date: 04 Aug 2003 08:45:32 +0200 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com In-reply-to: <3f2da966@news.bezeqint.net> (psycho@isdn.net.il) Subject: Re: slow operation References: <3f2cff90$1 AT news DOT bezeqint DOT net> <3f2da966 AT news DOT bezeqint DOT net> 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 > From: "Klayhamn" > Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp > Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 03:35:31 +0200 > > > Unfortunately, TurboC isn't really playing the same game. For > > starters, this program is C++, not C. That makes a *big* difference. > > NOTE: Borland also has a C++ compiler, but none that bears version > > number 3.0 and would be able to digest ANSI Standard C++ sources. > > Well i am using Borland's Turbo C 3.0 which IS able to digest ANSI c++ > sources.. > So we're talking about the same language/standard here and hre. No, we aren't: Turbo C++ doesn't support anything close to the monstrously large language defined by the latest ANSI C++ Standard. It supports basic C++ features and old versions of the standard classes, but not the bulk of the complexity introduced in the recent years. > > gpp -o Hello Hello.cpp > > gpp -o Hello Hello.cpp > > > > your disk cache is in need of a tweak. > > It doesn't decreate compilation time at all, > and i did exactly as the site instructed to set up disk caching. Somthing is probably wrong with your system setup, but it's hard to tell what exactly. Perhaps you have some antivirus software that checks each program before it is being run, perhaps it's something else. A trivial C++ source should take about 2-3 seconds on a machine such as yours. Try adding the -v switch to the compilation command line, and see what phase of the compilation (preprocessing, parsing, assembly, or link) takes the bulk of the time. That might give some useful hints. Also, try compiling a much larger source and see what time do you get there.