From: Daniel R. <da...@pc...> - 2003-12-10 19:50:21
|
As a 3rd party observer I thought I would throw in my 2 cents. Alvin, you = are=20 the one who is out of line. If anybody got "snippy" it was you when you=20 referred to Don's post as "drivel". Furthermore, I think that Don has a va= lid=20 objection. I don't know what constitutes a program of "realistic size/scop= e"=20 because I have seen useful programs of all different sizes, from a dozen li= nes=20 to 100,000 lines. > that's right; when someone exposes your observations as unscientific and > specious, just get snippy. that'll help your case. >=20 > -alvin >=20 > On Wed, 2003-12-10 at 14:15, Don HO wrote: >=20 > > =EF=BB=BF=20 > > I think it's a mailing list of MinGW, am I wrong? > > =20 > > =20 > > Don HO > > Je bouffe donc je suis > > =20 > > ----- Original Message -----=20 > > From: Alvin Thompson > > To: min...@li... > > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 5:57 PM > > Subject: Re: [Mingw-users] Generated Binary is BIGGER than > > VC++ 7generatedbinary !!! > > =20 > > i stated my problem quite clearly. > > =20 > > -alvin > > =20 > > =20 > > On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 18:48, Don HO wrote:=20 > > =20 > > > =EF=BB=BF=20 > > > What's your problem? > > > =20 > > > =20 > > > Don HO > > > Je bouffe donc je suis > > > =20 > > >=20 > > > ----- Original Message -----=20 > > > From: Alvin Thompson > > > To: min...@li... > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 5:00 PM > > > Subject: Re: [Mingw-users] Generated Binary is > > > BIGGER than VC++ 7 generatedbinary !!! > > > =20 > > > On Mon, 2003-12-08 at 20:00, Don HO wrote: =20 > > > =20 > > > > Yes it is really significant. > > > > 2 essential creterias for a compile : the size of > > > > generated code and its execution speed. > > > > Do you agree? > > > =20 > > > =20 > > > then perhaps you should do a more appropriate test? > > > like checking compile size/speed of a program of a > > > more realistic size/scope? saying that some one-line > > > program differs in size by a few k isn't really > > > saying anything. > > > =20 > > > in addition, since your code is so small it's > > > negligible, you may well be testing how efficiently > > > the MinGW libraries are written instead of how > > > efficiently the compiler compiles (at least as far > > > as speed is concerned, if not size as well)... > > > =20 > > > if you're really interested in making an evaluation > > > worth reading and not cluttering my inbox with > > > drivel, you will need to analyze the generated > > > assembly code from both compilers. > > > =20 > > > just a (half-baked) thought, > > > alvin |