> Hm, I didn't know that "export" is unsupported in g++. Maybe you know what
> compilers support it (Borland, Watcom)? (AFAIR, MSDEV does not.)
To my knowledge, none supports it. I think IBM Visual Age accepts it,
but processes it incorrectly in some cases.
> Anyway, I am suspiciously look at "ex
"Martin v. Loewis" wrote:
> > > > Why is it happening? Is it so because of more complex templates in
> > > > recent
> > > > libstdc++?
> > >
> > > If you are asking for compilation speed, yes, the main cause it that
> > > libstdc++ consists of many more templates now. If you are asking for a
> >
> > > Why is it happening? Is it so because of more complex templates in recent
> > > libstdc++?
> >
> > If you are asking for compilation speed, yes, the main cause it that
> > libstdc++ consists of many more templates now. If you are asking for a
> > slow-down in an application, you need to provi
"Martin v. Loewis" wrote:
> > When compiling the same programs with these compilers, g++ 2.95 is
> > much (sometimes 3 times) faster than g++ 3.0, even without
> > optimizing (without -O).
>
> Not sure what you asking. Are you saying g++ 2.95 is faster, or that
> the generated code is faster?
>
>
> When compiling the same programs with these compilers, g++ 2.95 is
> much (sometimes 3 times) faster than g++ 3.0, even without
> optimizing (without -O).
Not sure what you asking. Are you saying g++ 2.95 is faster, or that
the generated code is faster?
> Why is it happening? Is it so because o
Hello all.
When compiling the same programs with these compilers, g++ 2.95 is much
(sometimes 3 times) faster than g++ 3.0, even without optimizing (without -O).
Why is it happening? Is it so because of more complex templates in recent
libstdc++?
Is g++ 3.0 really a step further ?
Regards,
Alex
6 matches
Mail list logo
