<html><div style='background-color:'><P><BR><BR></P>
<P><BR><BR>Hi all, how about a version for mingw c++ compilers, it costs $0.00</P>
<P>is there a gdal for those compilers??<BR></P>
<DIV>
<H6>
<H6><FONT face="Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif" size=3></FONT></H6></H6></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #a0c6e5 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 11px; FONT-FAMILY: tahoma,sans-serif">
<HR color=#a0c6e5 SIZE=1>
From: <I>Joaquim Luis <jluis@ualg.pt></I><BR>To: <I>Mateusz Loskot <mateusz@loskot.net></I><BR>CC: <I>gdal-dev <gdal-dev@lists.maptools.org></I><BR>Subject: <I>Re: [Gdal-dev] Proposal for Unified Windows Binaries</I><BR>Date: <I>Tue, 17 Apr 2007 22:12:57 +0100</I><BR>MIME-Version: <I>1.0</I><BR>Received: <I>from duke.maptools.org ([209.217.116.153]) by bay0-mc6-f9.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2668); Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:19:12 -0700</I><BR>Received: <I>from duke.maptools.org (duke.maptools.org [127.0.0.1])by duke.maptools.org (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l3HLCpo6014019;Tue, 17 Apr 2007 17:13:37 -0400</I><BR>Received: <I>from smtp2.ualg.pt (smtp2.ualg.pt [193.136.224.7])by duke.maptools.org (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l3HLCnnd014008for <gdal-dev@lists.maptools.org>; Tue, 17 Apr 2007 17:12:49 -0400</I><BR>Received: <I>by smtp2.ualg.pt
(Postfix, from userid 501)id 381FB19403C; Tue, 17 Apr 2007 22:12:47 +0100 (WEST)</I><BR>Received: <I>from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])by smtp2.ualg.pt (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07805194039;Tue, 17 Apr 2007 22:12:47 +0100 (WEST)</I><BR>Received: <I>from smtp2.ualg.pt ([127.0.0.1])by localhost (smtp2.ualg.pt [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)with ESMTP id 3UOCva2oSyDO; Tue, 17 Apr 2007 22:12:46 +0100 (WEST)</I><BR>Received: <I>from [85.240.47.214] (bl7-47-214.dsl.telepac.pt [85.240.47.214])by smtp2.ualg.pt (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1722194036;Tue, 17 Apr 2007 22:12:45 +0100 (WEST)</I><BR>Mateusz Loskot wrote:<BR>>>A test case that I'm working with showed a dramatic reduction in<BR>>>running time using this compiler. from 2 min 50 sec (exe compiled<BR>>>with MSVC6) to 1:50<BR>>><BR>><BR>>It's not a surprise, because Visual C++ 6.0 is a
dinosaur and it <BR>>doesn't<BR>>fit well to modern CPUs regarding optimization.<BR>><BR>>Have you tried Visual C++ 8.0 or at least 7.1?<BR>><BR><BR>Mateusz,<BR>OK, I tried with 7.1 as well.<BR>The times are now<BR>2:25 min (VC6)<BR>2:05 min (VC7.1)<BR>1:20 min (Intel)<BR><BR>This is with a code that was originally in f77 and that I converted to C with f2c. I have<BR>been working on it and that's why the times have changed from the figures I posted earlier.<BR><BR>A side, very irritating, note. With the fortran Intel compiler that same code takes 1:05 min<BR><BR><BR>>Another subject is that it costs ~400 USD or so :-)<BR>><BR>I strong argument indeed.<BR><BR>Cheers<BR><BR>Joaquim<BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Gdal-dev mailing
list<BR>Gdal-dev@lists.maptools.org<BR>http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev<BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></div><br clear=all><hr>Las mejores tiendas, los precios mas bajos, entregas en todo el mundo, YupiMSN Compras: <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMBES/2749??PS=47575" target="_top">Haz clic aquí...</a> </html>