I would agree, except that I run Linux from a custom RAM disk (I know this takes up some of the precious RAM), thus there is no bottle neck there. And I would have a hard time believing that that it takes as much time to copy the source from one part of ram to another as it does to compile.rurwin wrote:I'd interpret it differently. I'd say the process was I/O bound waiting for the SD 50% of the time. The fact that RiscOS gets more CPU %age indicates it is less efficient; maybe it has less intelligent, or just smaller, disk caches. The real measure of course, is how long the compilation takes.
Also the CPU usages that i mentioned were only during time that there was zero file system activity of any kind. Including the time spent on file system access would be unfair, as most of that time is dead time.
As a note when compiling on RISC OS I also use a ram disk, and I have compared compile times using the same version of GCC on both platforms configured as close to identically as possible and built from the same source tree. RISC OS is usually about twice as fast with the same compile options and identical source. Though I do admit that on RISC OS the disk access is not as efficient it is also a lot less used than with Linux, and any one looking for faster compile times would be using a RAM disk for both the source and output. This is another reason that an OS that does not waste RAM is so important.