Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen From: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: What is the ratio of programs sizes CISC versus RISC Message-ID: <3429@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> Date: 13 Jun 91 16:32:32 GMT References: Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY Lines: 24 In article pb@idca.tds.philips.nl (Peter Brouwer) writes: | Who can give me some information about the ratio of program sizes of RISC | versus CISC. Code size (text) and total executable file size, both 32 bit systems, both unix flavors. Several files compiled in Xenix/386 (SCO C), Sun4 (Sun C), and MIPS (Ultrix C). All use -O. 386 Sun4 R3000 386 Sun4 R3000 Code Code Code File File File file1 56036 65536 81920 71716 81920 98304 zoo 2.10 alpha file2 43560 49152 69632 55368 65536 86016 zoo 2.01 file3 50692 65536 90122 64708 73728 106496 zip 0.82 file4 96468 163840 188416 107620 172032 200704 ksh 88e file5 76944 114688 151552 96416 139264 176128 memacs 3.9p3 Draw any conclusions you want, I've never seen a program which wasn't 15-25% larger in RISC, but that doesn't seem to a good reason for choosing a machine. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "Most of the VAX instructions are in microcode, but halt and no-op are in hardware for efficiency"