Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!samsung!spool.mu.edu!munnari.oz.au!mel.dit.csiro.au!yarra!pta!teti!teslab!andrew
From: andrew@teslab.lab.OZ (Andrew Phillips)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
Subject: Re: NorthC and BYTE sieve demo
Summary: Delete printf line before running timings
Message-ID: <1212@teslab.lab.OZ>
Date: 5 Mar 91 23:25:27 GMT
References: <45620@nigel.ee.udel.edu>
Reply-To: andrew@teslab.lab.oz.au (Andrew Phillips)
Organization: Technology Evaluation Section, L.A.B., Sydney
Lines: 32

In article <45620@nigel.ee.udel.edu> Dennis_Grant@cmr001.bitnet writes:
> [ about using BYTE Sieve of Eratosthenes Benchmark with NorthC ]
>...
> On a PC-XT, it (supposedly) took about 250 seconds.

With which compiler?

>...
>     I edited the source code, got rid of the printf("%d\n",prime);
>statement inside the main loop, and reran it. Bingo! One loop each second.
>(More or less) for a final score of about 100 or so. As expected.
>
>     My conclusion: The printf was taking a LOT of time to execute.
>
>     My question: Is this normal? Could a lowly XT really crank out 1600000
>printfs faster than my Amiga, or is this a quirk of NorthC? (or did BYTE
>delete those printfs too?) Any ideas?

The printf is *not* part of the benchmark, as should be mentioned
somewhere in the textof the Byte article.  The benchmark is not
designed to test I/O (which would be somewhat operating system
dependant anyway).  The printf is in there to make sure that the
program is working properly and should be deleted before any timings
are made.

PS Taking 40% of the time of an IBM PC (100/250) does not say much
for NorthC.  I would expect a good C compiler to produce code five
time faster (on a standard 7MHz Amiga vs a standard 5MHz PC clone).

Andrew.
-- 
Andrew Phillips (andrew@teslab.lab.oz.au) Phone +61 (Aust) 2 (Sydney) 289 8712