User forums > Help

Static vs Dynamic runtimes with GCC & VCTK

<< < (2/4) > >>

rickg22:
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).

kagerato:

--- Quote from: rickg22 on August 07, 2005, 04:52:12 am ---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).

--- End quote ---

 :shock: You're right.  I downloaded Open Watcom yesterday and built wxWidgets using it (instead of the usual g++).  The library built in five (!) minutes, rather than the fifteen it takes MinGW to work through it.

That factor of three becomes more significant when you know the hardware I'm building with: a pentium 4 (dual-core) 3.2 GHz CPU and 2 gbyte RAM.  If the difference is so great on this machine, it will only be larger on less powerful ones.

Such a time differential could make a difference; I see now why some have little praise for MinGW...

takeshimiya:
If you are amazed with Open Watcom, try with Digital Mars.
I've not tried myself to compile wx but the wxHatch autor made some benchmarks here.

Time to compile in debug build wxWidgets 2.5.3:
GCC 3.2:  47:14 minutes
Digital Mars: 2:34 minutes

To say GCC is slow in compiling time is perhaps a little gentle :o

Also, wxWidgets 2.5.3 total library sizes in MBytes in debug build:
GCC 3.2: 356 MB
Digital Mars: 31 MB

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.

kagerato:

--- Quote from: takeshimiya on August 07, 2005, 06:24:47 pm ---If you are amazed with Open Watcom, try with Digital Mars.
--- End quote ---

Digital Mars is not open source.  Nor does it provide a debugger.


--- Quote ---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.

--- End quote ---

With debug binaries that small, I fail to see what kind of information one expects to derive from them.  Concerning just symbols alone, what kind of verbosity are we looking at here?  Probably not much.  Though this already assumes that one can find a third-party debugger which is compatible and useful in the first place.

Optimization is likely pretty poor (if it exists at all) with a compilation time that short.

I don't expect a large library to rebuild instantaneously.  Five minutes seems quite sufficient considering the code base involved.

takeshimiya:
Well, of course if you compare it to Open Watcom the difference isn't so huge, but anyways, as you said, 

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:

Time to compile in debug build wxWidgets 2.5.3:
GCC 3.2:  47:14 minutes
Open Watcom 1.3: 16:04 minutes
Digital Mars: 2:34 minutes

So,  the ratio for GCC vs. Open Watcom is 3:1
and the ratio for GCC vs. Digital Mars is 20:1 :shock:

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 :)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page