Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/01/02/08:46:50
Tony O'Bryan wrote:
>
> On Mon, 30 Dec 1996 20:53:31 -0500, mlarch AT fred DOT net wrote:
>
> >With a rough timmer I got 78.6 seconds in dos
> >compared to 11.5 seconds in a dos window under
> >win95. What causes this ? In both cases TMPDIR
> >points to a 16meg ram disk. Under dos qemm is
> >serving up memory. The *.o files passed to make
> >total less than 8k.
>
> GCC spends most of its time loading the various compilation/link
> stages from disk. The RAM disk probably won't help a whole lot unless
> you move gcc and all its required accessories to the RAM disk.
>
> Win95 caches the executables, so has access to them much quicker than
> DOS does.
Win 95 sets aside all free physical memory for disk caching, thats
builds under Windows are so quick. I get abou the same results with a 8
meg smartdrv cache, but worse results with a 24 meg smartdrv cache. What
gives? I have 32 megs of ram and write back caching on both times.
--
Rob Vasquez
Digital FX '97
email: digital DOT fx AT worldnet DOT att DOT net
- Raw text -