On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:32:08 +0100, Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
wrote:
> It looks interesting but i have some doubts whether these numbers are
> representative.  My own tests some time ago showed that the MinGW version
> is significantly faster than the Borland C++ version.  What were the
> optimizations used for GCC?

BORLAND:
  CFLAGS=-6 -ff -H- -O2 -Oi -OS -Ov -P -q -V -vi -w
MINGW & DJGPP:
  CFLAGS= -march=pentiumpro -O3 -pedantic
DIGITAL MARS:
  CFLAGS= -o -v0 -cpp -mn -6 -ff -WA -Ae
WATCOM:
  CFLAGS= /oneatx /oh /oi+ /ei /zp8 /6 /fp6 /zq /xs /bt=nt 

I did not played much with settings - mostly used those suggested in docs.
Perhaps I can inspire somebody for further playing. I will be happy to find
propositions of other combinations.

Except Borland, development of all packages is open-like and perhaps some
improvements can be introduced into compilers. For example I would like to test
http://cmeerw.org/prog/dm/rtl.html solution. I have no idea how this can
influence.

> BTW the support libraries should not matter much when you render without
> file output.

Since image io operations are part of typicall using I decided to use it. But of
course for longer renderings its influence is less important.

ABX

Post a reply to this message