On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:22 PM, Angelo Graziosi wrote:
> Marco Atzeri wrote:
>>
>> In the gcc-3 era the C++ timing performance were really poor, gcc-4
>> solved a lot such problem.
>> I guess the situation is improved in the meantime but of course cygwin
>> is slower than an equivalent
>> native
Marco Atzeri wrote:
In the gcc-3 era the C++ timing performance were really poor, gcc-4
solved a lot such problem.
I guess the situation is improved in the meantime but of course cygwin
is slower than an equivalent
native build as he try to replicate the UNIX/Posix enviroment in an
unfriendly MS-
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 8:36 PM, wrote:
> In the ROOT downloading website:
> http://root.cern.ch/drupal/content/production-versio
> n-528
> It says:
> "Note that the performance of cygwin/gcc binaries is currently very poor; we
> only pro
> vide this build as an unsupported toy. We strongly recomm
On 1/27/2011 2:36 PM, wxie wrote:
In the ROOT downloading website:
http://root.cern.ch/drupal/content/production-version-528
It says:
"Note that the performance of cygwin/gcc binaries is currently very poor; we
only pro vide this build as an unsupported toy. We strongly recommend to use
the versi
In the ROOT downloading website:
http://root.cern.ch/drupal/content/production-versio
n-528
It says:
"Note that the performance of cygwin/gcc binaries is currently very
poor; we only pro
vide this build as an unsupported toy. We strongly recommend to use the
version above compiled with VC++. Th
