home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: newsfeed.dreamscape.com!usenet
- From: RKM <morerk@future.dreamscape.com>
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
- Subject: Re: Help - Can't get Visual C++ to behave
- Date: Sat, 06 Apr 1996 07:42:40 -0500
- Organization: SolutionWorks
- Message-ID: <316666C0.2A07@future.dreamscape.com>
- References: <4k3u5q$n01@chile.lascruces.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.64.128.55
- Mime-Version: 1.0
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
- X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I)
-
- sduran@lascruces.com wrote:
- >
- > I'm using Visual C++ version 1.52. Yes, I know there is version 4.0
- > out there.
- >
- > This compiler takes FIFTEEN MINUTES to compile. I can't use this
- > tool if it's this slow. Borland and Symantec C++ both compile at
- > acceptable speeds.
- >
- > Here's my question. Has Microsoft deliberately crippled version
- > 1.52, perhaps to encourage people to move to Windows 95? Also, what
- > could be wrong? What to I have to do to get it to compile at normal
- > speeds?
- >
- > Regards, SD
-
- (not a flame)
-
- What does "normal" speed mean???
-
- What is your platform???? Especially HOW MUCH MEMORY
-
- What are you compiling????
-
- What optimization options are you using???
-
- Are you one of those folks who <includes> every library in the
- world in every module???
-
- I have used BC++ (1.0 through 4.51), Watcomm, and MVC++
- (1.5 through 4.0)to build a number of 16 and 32 bit apps
- and find no appreciable difference when building CONSOLE
- apps. BUT OWL based routines do seem to link slightly faster
- than MFC based ones (subjective impression only).
-
-
- If not already done:
-
- 1) Keep modules small and only <include> the minimum.
- 2) Be careful with the PRAGMAs used, some have major impact
- 3) Ensure you have sufficient memory, 16mb is the minimum recommended
-