Performance: g++ Cygwin vs. other compilers (copying char[] to vector)
Tim Prince
tprince@computer.org
Sun Jul 18 17:03:00 GMT 2004
At 08:48 AM 7/18/2004, Alex Vinokur wrote:
>"Tim Prince" <tprince@computer.org> wrote in message
>news:6.0.1.1.0.20040718063702.01f796e8@imap.myrealbox.com...
> > 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 you have profiled. For g++
> > under cygwin,
>[snip]
>
>g++ *.cpp -o cps_cyg.exe // g++ Cygwin
>g++ -mno-cygwin *.cpp -o cps_mgw.exe // g++ Mingw
>gpp *.cpp -o cps_dj.exe // g++ Djgpp
>cl /EHsc *.cpp -o cps_ms.exe // C++ Microsoft
>dmc -I. -IC:/dm/stlport/stlport -Ae *.cpp -o cps_dm.exe // C++ Digital Mars
Microsoft C default is a good compromise between compilation speed and
performance. g++ Cygwin aims for compilation speed and no transformations
which inhibit debugging. Performance simply is not comparable without
normal optimization:
g++ -O3 -Drestrict=__restrict__ -funroll-loops -march=pentium4 -mfpmath=sse
*.cpp
CL /EHsc /Ox /arch:SSE2 *.cpp
I have no idea about Digital Mars, but STLport does have more optimization
than MS.
Nor do I know if any of your versions of g++ tinker with default optimization.
I believe clock() is implemented differently between cygwin and msvcrt, and
you may have additional variations represented here.
Tim Prince
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
More information about the Cygwin
mailing list