Re: Linux vs WinXP performance
lvirden_at_yahoo.com
Date: 10/06/03
- Next message: lvirden_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Linux vs WinXP performance"
- Previous message: Benjamin Riefenstahl: "Re: C question (was: Tcl-C question)"
- In reply to: mitch: "Linux vs WinXP performance"
- Next in thread: lvirden_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Linux vs WinXP performance"
- Reply: lvirden_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Linux vs WinXP performance"
- Reply: mitch: "Re: Linux vs WinXP performance"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 6 Oct 2003 13:38:47 GMT
According to mitch <mitchu@houston.rr.com>:
: (Should I
:recode the binary in "C" ? ...Oh God , please say no )
C programs get compiled to binary - and in fact, in general, one wouldn't
have a 'binary' to run unless it was written in C or some other compiled
or semi-compiled language (C++, Java, etc.)
So recoding isn't going to help.
-- <URL: http://wiki.tcl.tk/ > In God we trust. Even if explicitly stated to the contrary, nothing in this posting should be construed as representing my employer's opinions. <URL: mailto:lvirden@yahoo.com > <URL: http://www.purl.org/NET/lvirden/ >
- Next message: lvirden_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Linux vs WinXP performance"
- Previous message: Benjamin Riefenstahl: "Re: C question (was: Tcl-C question)"
- In reply to: mitch: "Linux vs WinXP performance"
- Next in thread: lvirden_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Linux vs WinXP performance"
- Reply: lvirden_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Linux vs WinXP performance"
- Reply: mitch: "Re: Linux vs WinXP performance"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|