Re: 50 times longer to compile than copy

"jacob navia" <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr>
9 Nov 2000 16:51:04 -0500

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[3 earlier articles]
Re: 50 times longer to compile than copy s337240@student.uq.edu.au (Trent Waddington) (2000-11-05)
Re: 50 times longer to compile than copy chase@naturalbridge.com (David Chase) (2000-11-07)
Re: 50 times longer to compile than copy Sid-Ahmed-Ali.TOUATI@inria.fr (Sid Ahmed Ali TOUATI) (2000-11-07)
Re: 50 times longer to compile than copy ONeillCJ@logica.com (Conor O'Neill) (2000-11-09)
Re: 50 times longer to compile than copy lex@cc.gatech.edu (Lex Spoon) (2000-11-09)
Re: 50 times longer to compile than copy christl@belinda.fmi.uni-passau.de (2000-11-09)
Re: 50 times longer to compile than copy jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr (jacob navia) (2000-11-09)
Re: 50 times longer to compile than copy vbdis@aol.com (2000-11-11)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: "jacob navia" <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 9 Nov 2000 16:51:04 -0500
Organization: Wanadoo, l'internet avec France Telecom
References: 00-11-034 00-11-074
Keywords: code, performance
Posted-Date: 09 Nov 2000 16:51:04 EST

"Lex Spoon" <lex@cc.gatech.edu> wrote in message


> smnsn@my-deja.com writes:
> > Does anybody have any idea why my local compiler would be taking
> > this much time? What might the compiler be doing with all those extra
> > nanoseconds? I'm not sure I can expect that my local compiler might
> > be optimized for speed. Actually that's an interesting question in
> > itself. Do compilers exist that improve on this 50:1 to 90:1 ratio?
>
> Supposedly lcc is extremely fast. If you have the time, it would be
> interesting to see how well it fares in this case.
>


Yes, I asked the author for the sources to be able to compile it with
lcc-win32.
  I am still waiting...

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.