On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, Szak�ts Viktor wrote: Hi Viktor,
> > [ Update: After removing both from 1.0.1 builds, I got _just slightly_ > bigger binaries, and about identical performance. As a downside, now > I'm getting 44 errors in hbtest, due to failing Round() and Int() > tests: 914, 917-920, 923-925, 959, 962-965, 968-970, 987-990. > Actually the new MinGW results are the right ones, but the > expected results seem to be screwed up, showing 705032704 instead of > 5000000000. Quite strange. ] Can you send the exact hbtest output? >> BTW. Viktor if possible then I would like to send you MinGW binaries >> to compare results on your system with your native MinGW builds. > Okay, no problem. Thank you. I'll create them in a while and send to your private email address. > [ As for OpenWatcom tests, maybe a bit later, I'd personally > rather choose the best from the mainstream compilers. ] > [ Lucky Linux/OS/2 users, I didn't expect Windows to suck this much. > Having said all that, maybe it'd just fine to enable MT by default on > those systems where there is no extra overhead beyond the one caused > by different C structures. ] In Linux it' snot such easy. You need quite new 2.6 kernels, new GLIBC and new GCC for native TLS support which works also in static binaries. Otherwise you have to use pthread_getspecific() which is much slower. I still have many installation based on 2.4 or even 2.2. I hope that older ones with 2.0 and 1.2/1.3 died with the hardware ;-) anyhow here we do not have pthreads support so it will not work. best regards, Przemek _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
