If I remember right, there can be a 30% increase in speed.
I am not sure if this is correct, but I am sure that Prowess running faster when compiled with XTC68.
Derek Adrian D. Ives wrote:
Urs, As you said, to the QL community it means "Just" that one can compile QDOS-programs under Windows. This is useful, however, for those only running emulators, because it means compilation can happen at the full speed of the native OS' CPU, rather than the (admittedly very efficient) emulated 68000. I have looked at the GCC story, and I did consider trying to get that solution to run under Windows, but the problem is that GCC has moved on a bit since then. I think the current version is 4.4.2 or thereabouts. Anyway, on to your other questions: 1. Yes - except you have to recreate the QDOS file header (file type and dataspace) once you get the file onto a QDOS volume. 2. No 3. I have done no meaningful performance comparisons or benchmarks under QDOS, simply because the answer to question 1 is yes. It's just the C68 compiler running under Win32, the executables it produces are the same as those produced under QDOS by the same version of C68. Regards, Adrian --- On Monday, October 26, 2009, 12:07:01 PM, you wrote: UKQ> Sounds like a great job! UKQ> But I never was much in C (my only C experience was on GST's UKQ> Small C way back in the 80s) and therefore I have no clue UKQ> about it. So what does this mean to the QL community? UKQ> "Just" that one can compile QDOS-programs under Windows? UKQ> If so, what about such compiled programs? UKQ> 1. Are the binaries 1:1 (file compare)? UKQ> 2. If not, any increase in performance under QDOS? UKQ> 3. If so, what about Dhrystone v2.1? UKQ> What about the GCC story of Thierry Godefroy then? UKQ> http://morloch.hd.free.fr/qdos/download.html#QDOSGCC UKQ> Urs _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
_______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
