Dickson@his-phoenix-multics.arpa (Paul Dickson) (06/27/88)
> No concessions are being made to MS-DOS or any of its compilers. A > number of people have said that the MINIX C compiler is slow. Since I > don't have (or want) any MS-DOS compiler, I can't make a comparison, but > I did run the following timing test. I removed all the .s files from fs > and typed: time make. The 20 compilations plus the link took 5:57 real > time on my Z-248, which has 1.5 MB RAM and an ST-225 hard disk (70 msec > access time). It seems to me that this isn't so awful. Obviously a PC > will be slower, but that should hold proportionally for all compilers. > > Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl) A friend of mine read this from your first message of the Minix 1.3 shipment, and he couldn't resist putting it to the test. He has PC clone with a MACH 10 board installed (10 MHz, but still talks to memory with a 8 bit bus). Using Turbo C 1.0 and doing the same compilation that you describe took us 3 mins and 13 secs or 54% of the time it took the MINIX C compiler. This makes the MINIX C compiler 85% slower than Turbo C 1.0. Turbo C 1.0, when running on my single board 186 computer (8MHz, 16bit bus), compiles programs 25% faster than my friends computer. This, even though the hard disk access rate is much slower on my computer. --> These values are for comparison only. Actual mileage may vary. <-- -Paul Dickson Dickson%pco @ BCO-Multics.ARPA