Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcsun!ukc!strath-cs!cs.glasgow.ac.uk!bru-cc!eesrajm
From: eesrajm@cc.brunel.ac.uk (Andrew J Michael)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Compiler comparisons (object code)
Summary: Object file sizes
Message-ID: <1926@Terra.cc.brunel.ac.uk>
Date: 13 Jan 91 09:00:40 GMT
References: <1640@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> <722@philica.ica.philips.nl> <729@philica.ica.philips.nl>
Organization: Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK
Lines: 34

In article <729@philica.ica.philips.nl>, adrie@philica.ica.philips.nl (Adrie Koolen) writes:
> In article <1921@Terra.cc.brunel.ac.uk> eesrajm@cc.brunel.ac.uk (Andrew J Michael) writes:
> >I have taken a couple of examples from my 386 -

(Stuff deleted)

> I've always been under the impression, that RISC processors need more
> instructions than a CISC processor to do the same job. The excess code is
> some 30%, depending on the exact processor (SPARC, MIPS, i860, 88000, etc.).
> Your examples show that the Sparc processor is significantly more (code)
> efficient than the 386!?! I still refuse to believe that. Give me the size
> of sort.o and dhrystone.o or, better yet, the `nm' list of sort.o and
> dhrystone.o (GCC includes a nm.c to list the symbol table of gcc generated
> object files).

Your wish is my command.  I can't get at the nm output on this machine, but
doing a compilation on the 386 and doing an ls -l of the object files gives:

  sort.o -       gcc: 10975   bcc: 9224
  dhrystone.o: - gcc: 2739    bcc: 2581

> Adrie Koolen (adrie@ica.philips.nl)
> Philips Innovation Centre Aachen

Andy Michael



-- 
Andy Michael (eesrajm@cc.brunel.ac.uk)      " Emulation is the sincerest
85 Hawthorne Crescent                         form of pottery."
West Drayton
Middlesex                                    - William Frend De Morgan
UB7 9PA