Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!haven!udel!mmdf
From: HBO043%DJUKFA11.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Christoph van Wuellen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: benchmarking MINIX-ST
Message-ID: <20792@nigel.udel.EDU>
Date: 1 Jun 90 15:03:25 GMT
Sender: mmdf@udel.EDU
Lines: 16

I must disagree with bruce Evans on his statement that the compiler used
to compile the ST-1.1 Kernel did not affect the percentage of the total
time spent during clock interrupts: I found that my compiler did it much
better because:

1.) It generates much better code for assignment of short structures
    (it is evident that this is important on a message-passing system)
    ( The compiler generates loops of move.l (an)+,(am)+ and it unrolls
      this loop for short structures like messages)
2.) The compiler uses the 68000 short*short=long multiply instructions
    for pointer additions instead of calling a (bad) library function
    (this is an enourmous gain).

The weakness of the ACK compiler with respect to these points has been
circumvented by other tricks in ST-1.5.
C.v.W.