Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!husc6!endor!siegel
From: siegel@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: TLSC vs MPW C :Savage
Message-ID: <2236@husc6.harvard.edu>
Date: 18 Jul 89 20:06:49 GMT
References: <1629@eds.ericsson.se>
Sender: news@husc6.harvard.edu
Reply-To: siegel@endor.UUCP (Rich Siegel)
Organization: Symantec Language Products Group
Lines: 28

In article <1629@eds.ericsson.se> rif_xu@eds.ericsson.se writes:
>
>	I have compiled the standard Byte benchmark  Savage using
>	Think's LSC 3.01p4 on a MacII. I used the Math881lib and
> 	the std881lib and had the flags for '881 and '020 code 
>	generation set. It ran in 6 s. A version compiled in
>	MPW C 2.02 ran in 3.3 s.
>	Can anyone tell me why LSC generates so slow (MPW C is nearly 
>	twice as fast) code ?
>
	Because when '881 is turned on, MPW C generates inline FPU
calls for the functions, and TLSC generates calls to the library routines.

R.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Rich Siegel
 Staff Software Developer
 Symantec Corporation, Language Products Group
 Internet: siegel@endor.harvard.edu
 UUCP: ..harvard!endor!siegel

"When it comes to my health, I think of my body as a temple - or at least
a moderately well-managed Presbyterian youth center." - Emo Phillips

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~