Comparison QB64 compiled with gcc optimizations and without

[mnrvovrfc]

:
_Deflate (compression) and _Inflate (decompression) functions.

program compiled with qb64 v0.5.0 -O3 :
Function _Deflate : 10.1x seconds
Function _Inflate :  1.2x seconds

program compiled with qb64 v3.0.0 -O3 :
Function _Deflate : 9.5x
Function _Inflate : 1.2x

program compiled with qb64 v0.5.0 original :
Function _Deflate : 10.1x seconds
Function _Inflate :  1.2x seconds

What a shame this still can't be done with v3.0 on Linux! Therefore this test is very subjective to me. What I think is Freebasic should be involved in this testing.

Meh compiler switches, something else besides "_INTEGER64", "_MEM", and besides real audio far better than "BEEP", and besides way better graphics than "CHR$()" capability on 8-bit computers and much more, on QB64's side only that the BASIC programmer, who was a newbie decades ago, has to come across in these later, burgeoning times.

There is the trap about the programmer who starts being obsessed with compiler switches "to make it run faster", but doesn't want to go full-on into C/C++. Pretty soon he/she is going to want to do nothing at all.