Additional information, ranks by executable size in KB, plus some conclusions: st-c52bli 271 st-hb-msvc 566 mt-hb-msvc 586 st-hb-bcc 629 mt-hb-bcc 652 st-hb-pocc 669 mt-hb-pocc 695 st-hb-ow 760 mt-hb-ow 807 st-hb-icc 811 mt-hb-icc 843 st-xhb-xcc 962 st-hb-mingw432 1076 st-hb-mingw433 1100 mt-hb-mingw432 1136 mt-hb-mingw433 1160
mt-xpp 252 (shared) For me the clear winner in all technical aspects is MSVC, creating almost the quickest executables (probably LTCG can enhance it a bit), and the smallest ones. It's also gratis, supports x64, unfortunately it's not free software and not multiplatform at all, but very-well supported by 3rd parties. Next one is MinGW, which is free, open source and multiplatform, also very well supported, gives the best speed amongst free tools (and the smallest MT overhead), but it generates huge executables on Windows. ICC stays being a curiosity because it's payware, Open Watcom performs unfortunately poorly in all aspects, I'm not sure what benefit can it do us for now, maybe in the future, or maybe it's possible to tweak performance. BCC and POCC have similar middle-ground performance, both closed-source and gratis, both with bugs and largely missing support from 3rd parties, uncertain future. POCC supports ARM and x64, uses standard COFF libs and all editions are gratis (not just some old versions with weird licensing), POCC can also generate proper .dlls, so it clearly wins over BCC. So my overall rank goes like this: - MSVC - MinGW (top rank, if being free software is important) - POCC Maybe owatcom, if it can be made faster, but otherwise, it's unfortunately useless. I see no reason to deal with BCC at all, since POCC is a better alternative. Most of these isn't news, what's new is that POCC is a very good replacement for BCC (if MSVC and MinGW isn't an option), and the unfortunate results of Open Watcom. [ Notice that Open Watcom's .dll support in Harbour is broken. Anyone to help fixing it? ] Rgds, Viktor On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Viktor Szakáts <harbour...@syenar.hu>wrote: > Hi Marek, > Yes, I've run tests ST and MT with pocc, ow, bcc, mingw and > icc for comparison, > also included previous Clipper, xpp and xhb tests. > > Get them here: > http://www.syenar.hu/harbour/winbench.zip > > Machine: > P4 2.6 HT 3GB RAM. No other apps running. > Command lines: > hbmk2 speedtst.prg -gc3 -mt -ospeedtstmt > hbmk2 speedtst.prg -gc3 > > Ranks based on "Total app time" [sec]: > st-hb-icc ..27.39 > st-hb-msvc ..29.88 > st-hb-mingw432 ..40.08 > st-hb-mingw433 ..41.91 > st-hb-bcc ..42.81 > st-hb-pocc ..42.86 > mt-hb-icc ..48.22 > mt-hb-msvc ..49.66 > st-hb-ow ..53.56 > mt-hb-mingw433 ..56.94 > mt-hb-mingw432 ..57.02 > mt-hb-bcc ..64.47 > mt-hb-pocc ..69.09 > mt-hb-ow ..77.03 > mt-xpp .108.45 > st-xhb-xcc .116.11 > st-c52bli .259.30 > > Rgds, > Viktor > > 2009/3/19 Horodyski Marek (PZUZ) <m.horody...@pzuzycie.com.pl> > >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Viktor Szakáts [mailto:harbour...@syenar.hu] >> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 18, 2009 2:39 PM >> *To:* Harbour Project Main Developer List. >> *Subject:* Re: [Harbour] Speedtest results >> >> Here is mine, just for fun :) [ BTW, Chen, you'd wonder how much faster >> Harbour would be with MSVC or MinGW. ] >> >> >> [...] >> >> >> --- exe size: 586KB (static) >> 03/18/09 11:10:46 Windows XP 5.1.2600 Service Pack 3 >> Harbour 1.1.0dev (Rev. 10642) Microsoft Visual C++ 15.0.26569 (32-bit) >> THREADS: 0 >> N_LOOPS: 1000000 >> [ T000: empty loop overhead ]...................................0.05 >> ==================================================================== >> [ T001: x := L_C ]..............................................0.03 >> >> >> [...] >> >> [ T056: f_prv( c ) ]............................................0.39 >> ==================================================================== >> [ total application time: ]....................................29.81 >> [ total real time: ]...........................................29.98 >> >> Viktor, >> can you present too test with OW on this computer ? >> >> Regards, >> Marek Horodyski >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Harbour mailing list >> Harbour@harbour-project.org >> http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
