ABX <abx### [at] abxartpl> wrote:

> > Rendering a sample scene with this compiled-by-me version takes about 90'',
> > while with the official executable rendering time is about 30''!
>
> What's comparison between rendering times under MinGW GUI and MinGW console
> builds ?

There is not much difference (80'' instead of 90'').

> BTW, I did not tried it myself but there is free console version of VisualC
> somewhere at Microsoft site. You could optionally try it.

I'll have a look at it. I also tried with Digital Mars, but I couldn't work
it out (some language compatibility problem, maybe).

> I never focused the optimisations under MinGW but I imagine you could find
> some help within povray.unix group since they are more experienced in
> optimisations of GCC.

OK,
thanks to everyone for your comments.
acasta

Post a reply to this message

Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:

> > Can you tell me whether this is just what you expect from these compilers or
> > I should adjust optimisation options differently?
> > Can you give me suggestions about what optimisations I should use?
> 
> It is well known that MinGW produces very slow executables. 

I can't confirm that.

I compiled Povray (more precise: MegaPov 1.0) with MingGW some time ago (I used 
an older version though, for some reason I couldn't get it to compile with 
recent versions), IIRC the speed difference was less than 10%.

Lutz-Peter

Post a reply to this message

<"acasta" <acastagnini AT yahoo DOT com>> wrote:

> Can you tell me whether this is just what you expect from these compilers or
> I should adjust optimisation options differently?
> Can you give me suggestions about what optimisations I should use?

There shouldn't be such a big difference.

Some results from a couple of winpov binaries I have available:

Chess2.pov, 320x240, no AA
My version (MingW): 39s
My version (BCC5):  55s
MegaPov 1.0 (MSVC): 40s
Povray 3.5 (ICL):   32s

I used these flags with mingw:
-DPRECISION_TIMER_AVAILABLE=0 -ffast-math -fomit-frame-pointer -malign-double
-march=pentium2 -mcpu=athlon-xp -O3 -Wno-multichar -mno-cygwin 
-Wunused-variable -static -mwindows -mno-cygwin

I don't remember wich version of MingW/Gcc version I used, though.

Lutz-Peter

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 00:44:33 +0200, Lutz-Peter Hooge <lpv### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> Chess2.pov, 320x240, no AA
> My version (MingW): 39s
> My version (BCC5):  55s
> MegaPov 1.0 (MSVC): 40s
> Povray 3.5 (ICL):   32s

Is 'My version' related to 3.5 sources? You probably missed frontend/backend
architecture introduced by 3.6 which is a big difference to internal world of
GUI work.

ABX

Post a reply to this message

ABX <abx### [at] abxartpl> wrote:

> Is 'My version' related to 3.5 sources? 

It's basically megapov 1.0 with a few small modifications 
(bicubic interpolation, better png support).

> You probably missed frontend/backend architecture introduced by 3.6
> which is a big difference to internal world of GUI work.

But the problem was rendering performance, not GUI.

Lutz-Peter

Post a reply to this message

I've compiled the unix/linux source distribution with the Cygwin environment
and results have been quite different. A summary:

Official povWin binary: about 30''
MinGW binary (GUI): 90''
MinGW binary (console, tried different optimisation options): 80''
Cygwin binary: 47''

I'll try to replicate exactly the same options in MinGW ans see what happens
(but I think most options were the same).

By the way, what compiler is used for the official linux binary?

acasta

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 11:18:48 EDT, "acasta" <acastagnini AT yahoo DOT com>
wrote:
> MinGW binary (console, tried different optimisation options): 80''
> Cygwin binary: 47''

Have you tried to apply the same compiler options from Cygwin build into flags
in makefile dedicated to MinGW build ? That would be worth to compare.

ABX

Post a reply to this message

<"acasta" <acastagnini AT yahoo DOT com>> wrote:

> Official povWin binary: about 30''
> MinGW binary (GUI): 90''
> MinGW binary (console, tried different optimisation options): 80''
> Cygwin binary: 47''

Thats strange. I thought Cygwin is basically the same as MingW,
just with additional utilities (like bash for win32 etc) and 
libraries for emuluting a unix environment.

Lutz-Peter

Post a reply to this message

ABX <abx### [at] abxartpl> wrote:
> Have you tried to apply the same compiler options from Cygwin build into flags
> in makefile dedicated to MinGW build ? That would be worth to compare.
>
> ABX

Yes: unfortunately there was no appreciable change in rendering time: I
obtained the usual 80'' for my sample scene I also had with the other MinGW
builds.

The full list of options used in the Cygwin build were:

-O3 -msse -mfpmath=sse -march=pentium3 -mcpu=pentium3
-malign-double -minline-all-stringops

acasta

Post a reply to this message

> I've compiled the unix/linux source distribution with the Cygwin environment
> and results have been quite different.

	You may also give a try to:  configure --without-cygwin-dll  to compile
the unix sources on cygwin but using the mingw32 library instead of the cygwin
DLL.

> By the way, what compiler is used for the official linux binary?

	gcc-3.4.0

	- NC

Post a reply to this message