Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!dutrun!robert
From: robert@duttnph.tudelft.nl (Robert de Vries)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Turbo C (was Re: Problems with LASER C 2.1)
Summary: Turbo C compiles faster than Mark Williams C
Message-ID: <944@dutrun.UUCP>
Date: 17 Oct 89 12:09:30 GMT
References: <1588@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca> <942@dutrun.UUCP> <2095@draken.nada.kth.se>
Sender: tnphnws@dutrun.UUCP
Reply-To: robert@duttnph.UUCP (Robert de Vries)
Organization: Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Lines: 43

In article <2095@draken.nada.kth.se> matsl@nada.kth.se (Mats Luthman) writes:
>How much faster than for example Lattice C? Could you give a rough estimate
>of the speed in lines per second?
>
OK, I made some coarse benchmarks. I do not have Lattice C online (on a
harddisk near me), so I used Mark Williams instead.
I compiled 4 source files of the image processing package AIM to their .o
equivalents.
The count of source lines is the sum of all include-files and the source
file.
I know that this is not very accurate, but you asked for it.

Williams C v 3.0.6
compiler-options: -c
ramdisk as tmp-drive
TurboDos installed
sources on harddisk

source	    lines	time(s)	lines/sec
aim.c	    1848	84.90	21.8
bblib5.c    1829	49.24	37.1
bblib8.c    1856	68.77	27.0
buildgra.c  907		11.09	81.8
average	    1610		41.9

Turbo C v 1.0
compiler-options: -p- -w
TurboDos installed
sources on harddisk

source	    lines   	time(s)	lines/sec
aim.c	    2807	26.15	107.3
bblib5.c    2648	20.86	126.9
bblib8.c    2909	25.37	114.7
buildgra.c  1813	11.29	160.6
average	    2544		127.4

I hope this answers your question.

      Robert
----------------------------------------------------
Robert de Vries            | Every opinion expressed
robert@duttnph.tudelft.nl  | above is my own.