[OT] Linux : XP : Vista - comparative compilation speeds

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[OT] Linux : XP : Vista - comparative compilation speeds

sisyphus1
Hi,
I've just compared the time it takes to build mpc-0.6 from source on Linux,
XP, and Vista.

On Vista and XP, (in the same version of the MSYS shell, and using the same
version of MinGW's gcc) I ran:

./configure --disable-shared --enable-static CPPFLAGS=-I/usr/local/include
LDFLAGS=-L/usr/local/lib && make && make check

On linux (mdk-9.1), it was the same command, but without the CPPFLAGS and
LDFLAGS arguments (as they're not necessary on linux).

Times taken were:
Linux : 1.5 mimutes
XP:  6.5 minutes
Vista: 16.5 minutes

In terms of processor capacity, the Vista box should be the fastest,
followed by the XP box, followed by the old Linux box, but clearly, OS
considerations are well and truly overwhelming those capacities. (If it were
just up to the processor speeds, then there wouldn't be a great difference,
anyway.)

Is there some
advice-for-dummies-who-don't-really-understand-operating-systems documented
somewhere that details the sorts of things one might do to shave time off
these compilations on XP and Vista ? (Especially bloody Vista.)

Cheers,
Rob


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
_______________________________________________
MinGW-users mailing list
[hidden email]

This list observes the Etiquette found at
http://www.mingw.org/Mailing_Lists.
We ask that you be polite and do the same.

Most annoying abuses are:
1) Top posting
2) Thread hijacking
3) HTML/MIME encoded mail
4) Improper quoting
5) Improper trimming
_______________________________________________
You may change your MinGW Account Options or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OT] Linux : XP : Vista - comparative compilation speeds

Earnie Boyd
Quoting Sisyphus <[hidden email]>:

>
> Is there some
> advice-for-dummies-who-don't-really-understand-operating-systems documented
> somewhere that details the sorts of things one might do to shave time off
> these compilations on XP and Vista ? (Especially bloody Vista.)
>

The advice I have is to accept the truth you've discovered, make the  
best of it, and know that the next version of the MS OS will be  
slightly slower.  Linux was built by those who understand optimization  
of the hardware instruction and wanted to be able to build the OS in  
less time than it takes to walk to the coffee pot and back.  The build  
time speed for Windows OS isn't as important to those creating it  
because they want the longer build times to nap at the desk.

--
Earnie


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
_______________________________________________
MinGW-users mailing list
[hidden email]

This list observes the Etiquette found at
http://www.mingw.org/Mailing_Lists.
We ask that you be polite and do the same.

Most annoying abuses are:
1) Top posting
2) Thread hijacking
3) HTML/MIME encoded mail
4) Improper quoting
5) Improper trimming
_______________________________________________
You may change your MinGW Account Options or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OT] Linux : XP : Vista - comparative compilation speeds

sisyphus1

----- Original Message -----
From: "Earnie Boyd" <[hidden email]>

>
> The advice I have is to accept the truth you've discovered, make the
> best of it, and know that the next version of the MS OS will be
> slightly slower.  Linux was built by those who understand optimization
> of the hardware instruction and wanted to be able to build the OS in
> less time than it takes to walk to the coffee pot and back.  The build
> time speed for Windows OS isn't as important to those creating it
> because they want the longer build times to nap at the desk.
>

A nap at the desk is one thing, but bears go through a full hibernation in
the time it takes to build gmp on Vista. (Slight exaggeration :-)

Thanks for the replies, guys. If no-one here knows of a way to get Vista
build times down to somewhere near XP build times, then I expect there isn't
one - or at least not a *safe* one.

Cheers,
Rob


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
_______________________________________________
MinGW-users mailing list
[hidden email]

This list observes the Etiquette found at
http://www.mingw.org/Mailing_Lists.
We ask that you be polite and do the same.

Most annoying abuses are:
1) Top posting
2) Thread hijacking
3) HTML/MIME encoded mail
4) Improper quoting
5) Improper trimming
_______________________________________________
You may change your MinGW Account Options or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OT] Linux : XP : Vista - comparative compilation speeds

Jonathan Schleifer-4
> Thanks for the replies, guys. If no-one here knows of a way to get  
> Vista
> build times down to somewhere near XP build times, then I expect  
> there isn't
> one - or at least not a *safe* one.

You could run a Linux in a VM and crosscompile ;). That will be even  
faster than with XP.

--
Jonathan


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
_______________________________________________
MinGW-users mailing list
[hidden email]

This list observes the Etiquette found at
http://www.mingw.org/Mailing_Lists.
We ask that you be polite and do the same.

Most annoying abuses are:
1) Top posting
2) Thread hijacking
3) HTML/MIME encoded mail
4) Improper quoting
5) Improper trimming
_______________________________________________
You may change your MinGW Account Options or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-users

PGP.sig (817 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OT] Linux : XP : Vista - comparative compilation speeds

ColdShine
2009/4/6 Jonathan Schleifer <[hidden email]>:
>> Thanks for the replies, guys. If no-one here knows of a way to get Vista
>> build times down to somewhere near XP build times, then I expect there
>> isn't
>> one - or at least not a *safe* one.
>
> You could run a Linux in a VM and crosscompile ;). That will be even faster
> than with XP.

I did find a solution in Cooperative Linux. It is pretty much as fast
as a native linux would be, and yes, of course then you're
cross-compiling. It's a bit immature yet, i.e. it isn't as easy to set
up as it could, but hey, we're software developers, we must know how
to handle this kind of things :)

When I say it's fast, I really mean it. In a way, it's like Cygwin,
except instead of being a replacement for the libc, it's a replacement
for the kernel. The disk access is as fast as the hard drive is, since
it uses image files (like an emulator or virtualizer). Of course this
means that you'll need Samba on the guest linux, to be able to access
the files from the Windows host.

--
CS

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment.
Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com
--
_______________________________________________
MinGW-users mailing list
[hidden email]

This list observes the Etiquette found at
http://www.mingw.org/Mailing_Lists.
We ask that you be polite and do the same.

Most annoying abuses are:
1) Top posting
2) Thread hijacking
3) HTML/MIME encoded mail
4) Improper quoting
5) Improper trimming
_______________________________________________
You may change your MinGW Account Options or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-users