Hello Viktor
Viktor Szakáts wrote: > > This can be misleading. In almost all tests msvc the fastest, > mingw follows and bcc lags behind by quite much. msvc and mingw > are much better supported, so it's way easier to work with them. > What is misleading in the above figures? I showed above the results of same application with same action in same environments. The figures were just a run for all three compilers. The action was in thread # 3, primary thred firing a module, modulethread firing a browser, browser is moved top-down, three times to get average. Then I cmpiled speedtst.prg with all three compilers and found your statement to be true. MSVC then MINGW then BCC and difference was noticeable. Then I recompiled my application and again executed the same tests, but I received more-or-less the same above figures. I am trying to figure-out where is the catch. Note that my application is not pure console, it exploits all the GUI elements of GTWVG. May be this can explain some reasons. >> Personal observation: >> * MINGW has the limitation not to allow more than 1 resource files ( >> really a shame ). >> > > This is false information. Just try multiple resources with hbmk2 > and it should work. Resources are compiled to objects in mingw > and you can link any number of such objects to an executable. > Yes, you are right. MINGW also compiles multiple .RES. I was under wrong impression, but may be based on some past experience. >> * MINGW is very tricky when you need Windows .dlls to be manipulated ( >> again a severe limit ). >> > > I'd call it the most convenient, since you don't need implibs at all, > of course you can't link any .dlls with non-matching calling convention, > but it this case no implib would help anyway. > Here is the problem. I use Eztwain.dll from www.dosadi.com. I wrote all the wrappers which work fine with MSVC and BCC but I have not been able to get it working with MINGW ( probably a show stopper in my case ), it does not matter how hard I try with different approaches. > * BCC is handy to include any external lib because of "implib" utility > >> but slowest of all. >> > > Also good to know that implib is buggy, so it will something give strange > results. (openssl, libcurl) > I do not know, nor did I say the "implib" is buggy. Just explained that it has always allowed me to add any library I needed. BCC is slower of all compilers, this is what I observed. Regards Pritpal Bedi -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/From-xHarbour-to-Harbour%3A-need-some-infos-tp26256686p26262085.html Sent from the Harbour - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
