Hi,
But then I created windows binaries of speedtst.exe for both compilers
also compiled with -gc2:
1) BCC:
size: 600576
execution time: 33.38 / 33.60
2) MinGW:
size: 882688 (striped)
execution time: 21.99 / 22.15
So BCC gives ~50 worse results.
Interesting that in your case the difference is smaller.
If it's possible and you agree I would like to send you my binaries
so we can compare results in real windows also with your previous
ones from MinGW-GCC4.4.0 builds.
Yes, of cause, please send me. It's also strange we get different exe
size for the same BCC compiler, it seems some compile options ar source
versions is a little different. What is your BCC version? I use:
Borland C++ 5.5.1 for Win32 Copyright (c) 1993, 2000 Borland
I've just rebuild Harbour using MinGW with:
export HB_USER_CFLAGS="-Os"
and the results are:
size: 496640 (striped)
execution time: 35.23 / 35.40
so the size of speedtst.exe is smaller then in BCC builds but also ~5.5%
slower.
Wow! I did not expect to be such a big difference in exe size (496KB vs
882KB) if different optimisation is used.
Regards,
Mindaugas
_______________________________________________
Harbour mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
