How can I use the static runtime with GCC, or the dynamic runtime with VCTK ?
GCC _IS_ slow in compilation times. Regarding runtimes, programs are as fast as others.
See, compiling Code::Blocks using Digital Mars takes around 2 or 3 minutes. Under GCC it takes about 10 minutes. (The benchmarks were somewhere around the forums).
If you are amazed with Open Watcom, try with Digital Mars.
So, taking in account the benchmarks, I can conclude that Digital Mars is a very good option while developing, and GCC is a good option for distributing and releasing.
Optimization is likely pretty poor (if it exists at all) with a compilation time that shortAccording to various benchmarks I found on the net, that is (surprisingly) not true. gcc uniformly performs singnificantly (around 20-30%) worse than MSVC and DM which are both more or less equal.
gcc 3.4.4 | 22:11 minutes |
Digital Mars | 1 second (bailing out after 5 or 6 errors) |
It's 5 minutes in OpenWatcom BUT if you have: "A pentium 4 (dual-core) 3.2 GHz CPU and 2 gbyte RAM".
Most of us don't have that processing power :(
BTW, comparing your benchmarks and the benchmarks made by wxHatch, seems to have almost the same ratio:
(...)
It wouldn't be illogical then, to think that you can compile with your HIGH spec pc, the complete wxWidgets library using DMars in 45 seconds.
Better not to talk about the optimizations of Open Watcom. GCC is very good though (lower is better, in milliseconds):
Open Watcom 1.1 DEBUG: 11922 ms
Open Watcom 1.1 RELEASE: 6578 ms
GCC 3.2 RELEASE: 2031 ms
DMars DEBUG: 3812 ms
You can see DMars in DEBUG mode outperforms Open Watcom even in RELEASE mode.
About the debugger, DMars works with Symantec, Zortech, Rational Systems, Multiscope, and Microsoft debuggers (dunno about GDB).
Anyways there will be a point (hopefully) when you probably rarely need a debugger (I know that there are people that doesn't debuggers anymore)
The more compilers (that support the standards) the better :)
Who needs to rebuild of wxWidgets 5 times per day, anyway.