Qt-interest Archive, December 2007
Digital Mars Compiler
Message 1 in thread
Hi All ;-) ,
I'm suffering from compiling speed of MinGW (it's so slow by comparing
with M$ Visual C++ express), so I'm looking for using Digital Mars C++
Compiler <http://www.digitalmars.com/features.html> (DMC++), I think
it's faster than MinGW, but I'm not sure if I can use DMC++ with Qt open
source edition, and eclipse integration.
So can you guide me to the suitable solution?
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 2 in thread
> I'm suffering from compiling speed of MinGW (it's so slow by
> comparing with M$ Visual C++ express), so I'm looking for using
Hmm ... are you using preccompiled headers?
I don't think MinGW compilers are so slow with sufficant RAM and
precompiled headers support ...
Well, I didn't touch M$ compilers since those days of VC6 (shudder), so I
might not be able to compare, but I can do quite effective programming
with MinGW (gcc 4.1.2), using precompiled headers and Qt4 Commercial :-)
Regards,
Malte
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 3 in thread
Malte Witt wrote:
> Hmm ... are you using preccompiled headers?
> I don't think MinGW compilers are so slow with sufficant RAM and
> precompiled headers support ...
>
> Well, I didn't touch M$ compilers since those days of VC6 (shudder), so I
> might not be able to compare, but I can do quite effective programming
> with MinGW (gcc 4.1.2), using precompiled headers and Qt4 Commercial :-)
>
> Regards,
> Malte
>
I asked before in this maillist about how i can increase compiling speed
of MinGW, and i got the same answer (use pre-complied), this didn't
solve the problem pre-compiled headers increased the speed but not too much.
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 4 in thread
Quoting Malte Witt <malte.witt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> I'm suffering from compiling speed of MinGW (it's so slow by
>> comparing with M$ Visual C++ express), so I'm looking for using
>
> Hmm ... are you using preccompiled headers?
> I don't think MinGW compilers are so slow with sufficant RAM and
> precompiled headers support ...
>
> Well, I didn't touch M$ compilers since those days of VC6 (shudder), so I
> might not be able to compare, but I can do quite effective programming
> with MinGW (gcc 4.1.2), using precompiled headers and Qt4 Commercial :-)
In my projects, MinGW with -O2 outputs code 20-30% bigger in size than
VC++. I have not measured speed because I'm not using MinGW in
production but I'd expect it to be slower, too.
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 5 in thread
> In my projects, MinGW with -O2 outputs code 20-30% bigger in size than
> VC++. I have not measured speed because I'm not using MinGW in
> production but I'd expect it to be slower, too.
Yeah - that probably didn't change since thoses VC6 days. Gcc will produce
bigger executables and probably will be slower than M$ compilers. That was
a fact years ago as well.
But MinGW-gcc is NOT that bad! You can of course do production development
using MinGW-gcc. And event though it might be slower than M$ - it is still
absolutely acceptable - even in bigger projects. And honestly - how often
do you have to rebuild your whole project tree? I bet you cannot even feel
the difference for one or two object phases ;-)
IIRC gcc and ld do a whole bunch of dynamic memory allocations and file
operations, so that might be the point where M$ passes by.
Regards,
Malte
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 6 in thread
> Von: "Malte Witt"
> > In my projects, MinGW with -O2 outputs code 20-30% bigger in size than
> > VC++. I have not measured speed because I'm not using MinGW in
> > production but I'd expect it to be slower, too.
>
> Yeah - that probably didn't change since thoses VC6 days. Gcc will produce
> bigger executables and probably will be slower than M$ compilers. That was
> a fact years ago as well.
> But MinGW-gcc is NOT that bad! You can of course do production development
> using MinGW-gcc. And event though it might be slower than M$ - it is still
> absolutely acceptable - even in bigger projects. And honestly - how often
> do you have to rebuild your whole project tree? I bet you cannot even feel
> the difference for one or two object phases ;-)
> IIRC gcc and ld do a whole bunch of dynamic memory allocations and file
> operations, so that might be the point where M$ passes by.
>
Hope you'll never try to compile kde4 with mingw... :)
It's so painfull slow that we all switched to msvc.
Christian
--
[ signature omitted ]
