On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, GARY VANSICKLE wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > New copying methods have been added and checked:
> >
> > Test file modes : text, binary
> > --
> >
> > Testsuites
> > --
> > [snip]
> >
> > See:
> > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.co
"GARY VANSICKLE" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [snip]
> >
> > New copying methods have been added and checked:
> >
> > Test file modes : text, binary
> > --
> >
> > Testsuites
> > --
> > C-01 : Functions getc() and putc()
> >
[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 fr
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" cs.york.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:407C0198.4000707 cs.york.ac.uk...
> > Alex Vinokur wrote:
> >
> > >===
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004, Dave Korn wrote:
> > From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Frédéric L. W. Meunier
> > Sent: 14 April 2004 07:35
>
> > Anyway, does anybody know if GCC in Cygwin is compiled with
> > --disable-checking ? gcc -v didn't return it, so it doesn't
> > look like. It seems using it causes c
> -Original Message-
> From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Frédéric L. W. Meunier
> Sent: 14 April 2004 07:35
> Anyway, does anybody know if GCC in Cygwin is compiled with
> --disable-checking ? gcc -v didn't return it, so it doesn't
> look like. It seems using it causes compilation times to
>
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, Hans Horn wrote:
> Are there other benchmarks around that compare gcc3.x, gcc3.x
> (cygwin), etc against the gcc2.9x vintage?
2.95.x has always been much faster for both C and C++ when
compared to 3.x.
At least on Linux, 3.4.0 prerelease was around 10% faster to
compile the
"Alex Vinokur" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[snip]
> > How can we know how long the startup time is?
>
> In other words, what is the difference between startup time and runtime?
> What takes (doesn't take) place in startup time?
>
[snip]
Can we know when the start time ends?
--
Ale
Alex Vinokur wrote:
"chris" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Alex Vinokur wrote:
Comparative Performance of C++ Compilers
C/C++ Performance Tests
=
While this is quit
Alex Vinokur wrote:
Three extra jobs for copyfile.cpp, g++ (Mingw32 Interface),
> No optimization.
^^^
So the results are completely meaningless.
--
Ross Smith .. Pharos Systems, Auckland, New Zealand
*** Divide by cucumber error. Please reinstall universe and reb
"Alex Vinokur" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "chris" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Alex Vinokur wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Comparative Performance of C++ Compilers
> > >C/C++ Performance Tests
> > >=
"chris" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Alex Vinokur wrote:
>
> >
> >Comparative Performance of C++ Compilers
> >C/C++ Performance Tests
> >=
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> While this is q
"Hans Horn" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Quite interesting indeed!
>
> Are there other benchmarks around that compare gcc3.x, gcc3.x (cygwin), etc
> against the gcc2.9x vintage?
See "C/C++ Program Perfometer : Tool for measuring comparative performance of the
C/C++ code "
http://gro
Quite interesting indeed!
Are there other benchmarks around that compare gcc3.x, gcc3.x (cygwin), etc
against the gcc2.9x vintage?
H.
"chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Alex Vinokur wrote:
>
> >
> >Comparat
Alex Vinokur wrote:
Comparative Performance of C++ Compilers
C/C++ Performance Tests
=
While this is quite interesting, it seems to me you aren't really
running these programs for lon
Comparative Performance of C++ Compilers
C/C++ Performance Tests
=
Environment
---
Windows 2000 Professional
Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU 1.70 GHz
16 matches
Mail list logo
