Re: Performance: g++ Cygwin vs. other compilers (copying char[] to vector)

At 08:48 AM 7/18/2004, Alex Vinokur wrote: "Tim Prince" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > At 05:00 AM 7/18/2004, Alex Vinokur wrote: > > >Hi, > > > >How to explain so considerable difference in performance: g++ Cygwin vs. > >other compilers in tests below? [snip] > I

Re: Performance: g++ Cygwin vs. other compilers (copying char[] to vector)

"Tim Prince" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > At 05:00 AM 7/18/2004, Alex Vinokur wrote: > > >Hi, > > > >How to explain so considerable difference in performance: g++ Cygwin vs. > >other compilers in tests below? [snip] > I don't find your compile options, or whether

Re: Performance: g++ Cygwin vs. other compilers (copying char[] to vector)

At 05:00 AM 7/18/2004, Alex Vinokur wrote: Hi, How to explain so considerable difference in performance: g++ Cygwin vs. other compilers in tests below? I can't figure out at a glance what you are doing. I find that loop lengths of 1000 or less (32-bit data types) require the cpu cycle timer (rd

Performance: g++ Cygwin vs. other compilers (copying char[] to vector)

Hi, How to explain so considerable difference in performance: g++ Cygwin vs. other compilers in tests below? Simple C/C++ Perfometer : Copying char[] to vector (Version CS-1.0) * func_memcpy * func_copy * func_copy_with_reserve * func_transform * func_ctor * The whole program at http://thread.