"chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > >On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 02:36:32PM +0300, Alex Vinokur wrote: > > > > > >>------ Cygwin ------ > >>$ gcc foo.c -o foo1.exe > >>$ gcc foo.c -mno-cygwin -o foo2.exe > >> > >>------ MinGW ------ > >>$ gcc foo.c -o foo3.exe > >> > >>1. What is the difference between foo1.exe and foo2.exe? > >>2. Is there any difference between foo2.exe and foo3.exe? > >> > >> > > > >Call cygcheck foo[123].exe. > > > > > Just to add to this. For whatever reasons, I have found mingw > executables to be slightly, but measurably faster (this was done some > time ago).
Not always. Comparative performance tests were carried out using the same compiler (gcc/g++/gpp 3.2) in different environments (CYGWIN, MINGW, DJGPP) on Windows 2000 Professional. Different methods of copying files were tested : ------ C methods ------ Method C-1 : Functions getc() and putc() Method C-2 : Functions fgetc() and fputc() ------ C++ methods ------ Method CPP-1 : Operators >> and << Method CPP-2 : Methods get() and put() Method CPP-3 : Methods sbumpc() and sputc() Method CPP-4 : Method sbumpc() and operator << Method CPP-5 : Method rdbuf() and operator << The results for CYGWIN and DJGPP are consistent, in particular: C-methods C-1 and C-2 are faster than C++-methods CPP-1, CPP-2, CPP-3. Whereas it seems that C-methods C-1 and C-2 on MINGW are too slow, e.g., C-methods C-1 and C-2 are slower than C++-methods CPP-2, CPP-3. The summary results are can be seen at http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bifvr9%248qbgl%241%40ID-79865.news.uni-berlin.de [snip] ===================================== Alex Vinokur mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mathforum.org/library/view/10978.html ===================================== -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
