From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,d90dae85c0a960ae
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: GNAT uppgrades slows thing down ???
Date: 1997/03/15
Message-ID: <dewar.858439863@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 225803184
References: <01bc2f1b$4998bba0$355ff482@default> <1997Mar13.091104.5772@news>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-03-15T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Gautier said

<<Back to GNAT: the DOS 3.07 version of GNAT (ftp://ftp.gwu.edu/pub/ada/ez2load/)
is much faster than the 3.05 one ...and it runs under windoze 95!>>

Again, if you see an effect like this, you are not seeing something about
the underlying speeds of the two compilers which are very similar, but
rather memory utilization effects. It is certainly true that if you have
limited memory (16 megs or less), the DOS version may well run faster
because of less junk competing for memory. But I will say it again,
these days when 16 meg of memory costs $79 (that's just a price in
my NYT today, for all I know you can do better), you have to value
your time cheaply for it to be worthwhile waiting around for a 16 meg
machine to chew through stuff!