This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: gcc version 3.3.1 (cygming special)
"chris" <email@example.com> wrote in message 3F6F09C5.firstname.lastname@example.org">news:3F6F09C5.email@example.com...
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 02:36:32PM +0300, Alex Vinokur wrote:
> >>------ Cygwin ------
> >>$ gcc foo.c -o foo1.exe
> >>$ gcc foo.c -mno-cygwin -o foo2.exe
> >>------ MinGW ------
> >>$ gcc foo.c -o foo3.exe
> >>1. What is the difference between foo1.exe and foo2.exe?
> >>2. Is there any difference between foo2.exe and foo3.exe?
> >Call cygcheck foo.exe.
> Just to add to this. For whatever reasons, I have found mingw
> executables to be slightly, but measurably faster (this was done some
> time ago).
Comparative performance tests were carried out
using the same compiler (gcc/g++/gpp 3.2)
in different environments (CYGWIN, MINGW, DJGPP)
on Windows 2000 Professional.
Different methods of copying files were tested :
------ C methods ------
Method C-1 : Functions getc() and putc()
Method C-2 : Functions fgetc() and fputc()
------ C++ methods ------
Method CPP-1 : Operators >> and <<
Method CPP-2 : Methods get() and put()
Method CPP-3 : Methods sbumpc() and sputc()
Method CPP-4 : Method sbumpc() and operator <<
Method CPP-5 : Method rdbuf() and operator <<
The results for CYGWIN and DJGPP are consistent, in particular:
C-methods C-1 and C-2 are faster than C++-methods CPP-1, CPP-2, CPP-3.
Whereas it seems that C-methods C-1 and C-2 on MINGW are too slow, e.g.,
C-methods C-1 and C-2 are slower than C++-methods CPP-2, CPP-3.
The summary results are can be seen at
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html