Hans Horn writes:
>
> Quite interesting indeed!
>
> Are there other benchmarks around that compare gcc3.x, gcc3.x (cygwin), etc
> against the gcc2.9x vintage?
>
> H.
> "chris" <caj <at> cs.york.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:407C0198.4000707 <at> cs.york.ac.uk...
> > Alex Vinokur wrote:
> >
> > > ========================================
> > > Comparative Performance of C++ Compilers
> > > C/C++ Performance Tests
> > > =========================================
> > >
> > >
> > >
[snip]
New copying methods have been added and checked:
Test file modes : text, binary
------------------------------
Testsuites
----------
C-01 : Functions getc() and putc()
C-02 : Functions fgetc() and fputc()
C-03 : Functions fread() and fwrite()
UNIX-C-04 : Function mmap
CPP-01 : Operators >> and <<
CPP-02 : Methods get() and put()
CPP-03 : Methods sbumpc() and sputc()
CPP-04 : Method sbumpc() and operator <<
CPP-05 : Method rdbuf() and operator <<
CPP-06 : Methods read() and write() with const buffer
CPP-07 : Methods read() and write() with max buffer
CPP-08 : Method getline
CPP-09 : Method ifstream getline
CPP-10 : Method iterators (istream_iterator, ostream_iterator)
See:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.c++.perfometer/45
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.c++.perfometer/44
--
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/
