|
 |
povray.org admin team wrote:
>
> Mike <Ama### [at] aol com> wrote:
>
> >I'm pretty happy with VC++ though, and I don't have any reason to get
> >another compiler. Programming is merely a hobby for me. I find the
> >code to be fast now that I turned debugging off for the final compile. I
> >did a quick test on a scene with some media, height fields, fog, and a
> >few other things.
> >
> >VC++ - 2 minutes 29 seconds
> >Watcom - 2 minutes 30 seconds.
>
> try to do a longer test, as parse time can skew the results. our observations
> is that VC or Borland are significantly faster at parsing than Watcom (probably
> due to some slow routine in the Watcom run-time library, maybe malloc or some
> such). but the actual render should be significantly faster using watcom.
I havn't ran tests with 3.1a but when i compiled 3.01 with VC++ 5, (I
created my
own work around then, which eludes me on what i did) I got
slower parse time and faster render times. But I set the compiler to
optimize for a Pentium Pro.
But since I use superpatch anyways now, I'm not completely set up to
easily test 3.1a.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
