Christopher Benson-Manica
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2004 2:30 pm Post subject: Re: speed vc++ vs. c++builder |
 |
|
PDQBach <portnoy (AT) freenet (DOT) de> spoke thus:
(followups set)
| Quote: | Sorry for beeing offtopic. thanks for the answer.
|
I've crossposted this to what I believe to be the appropriate Borland
group, because as noted it's offtopic for clc++, and I as a Borland
user have some interest in the answer. You can read the Borland group
using newsgroups.borland.com as your news server, if the one you're
using now doesn't carry the Borland groups.
(nothing trimmed, although some comments added)
| Quote: | but chances are it'll remain somewhat slower anyway.
[compared to VC++]
i wouldnt call twice as fast somewhat. i prefer bcb for the ease of
use but such differences are inacceptable. i get the same results with
the following:
#include "stdafx.h"
#include
#include
#include
using namespace std;
void main() {
^^^^ |
This should be int for a standard C++ program, although I don't know
what bcc thinks about it.
| Quote: | clock_t beg;
double j;
beg = clock();
for (double i=0; i<200000000; ++i) j = i*1000000;
int dif = clock()-beg;
cout << dif << endl;
getch();
i think theres nothing to optimize? how cant bcb optimizer screw up
such simple things? (sorry for continuing an offtopic thread)
|
(I don't believe OP specified his BCB version - I'd specifically be
interested in a BCB 4.0 answer.)
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
