It's just a comparison:
.486
.model flat
.code
Start:
End Start
ML: Total compile time 78 ms
.code
main proc
main endp
end
ML64: Total compile time 78 ms
well but
include \masm32\include\masm32rt.inc
.code
Start:
End Start
ML: Total compile time 328 ms
include \masm64\include\masm64rt.inc
.code
main proc
main endp
end
ML64: Total compile time 1984 ms
That makes sense, the number of include files and libraries make the difference. I confess I have never particularly worried about assemble / compile times on modern machines, it was a pain on old hardware 20 years ago but the speed difference of modern hardware solves the problem. What I am worried about is the performance of the finished binary.
With the dual 64/32 assembly examples (updated today (http://masm32.com/board/index.php?topic=94.0)), the assemble & link times are only marginally longer than for plain MASM32 files.
Timings for my Core i5 cpu:
The console example needs 400 ms with ML64 and JWasm, 270 ms with AsmC
The window template needs 500 ms with ML & (H)JWasm, 360 ms with AsmC
Quote from: mabdelouahab on August 30, 2016, 01:15:23 AM
ML64: Total compile time 1984 ms
That is clearly too much for a Hello World. For comparison, the RichMasm source with its 18k lines takes less than 900ms 8)