From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23064 invoked by alias); 23 Sep 2003 19:45:15 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 23057 invoked from network); 23 Sep 2003 19:45:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO koeln.convey.de) (62.138.63.18) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 Sep 2003 19:45:14 -0000 Received: from ismene.koeln.convey.de (192.168.5.3:1669) by koeln.convey.de with [XMail 1.17 (Win32/Ix86) ESMTP Server] id for from ; Tue, 23 Sep 2003 21:45:13 +0200 Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 19:51:00 -0000 From: "Gerrit P. Haase" Reply-To: "Gerrit P. Haase" Organization: Esse keine toten Tiere X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <15334716930.20030923214507@familiehaase.de> To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: FYI: bladeenc - fairly easy port. In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-09/txt/msg01494.txt.bz2 Hannu schrieb: > Approximate speed difference: > -O2 runs 1.75x speed > -O0 runs 0.75x speed (P2/450!) > -O0: "All operations completed. Total encoding time: 00:47:46" > -O2: "All operations completed. Total encoding time: 00:20:04" I guess it will be faster when using a native Windows (non Cygwin based) version. Is there also a Windows port available? How fast is it compared with the Cygwin version? Gerrit -- =^..^= -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/