Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!jon@cit-vax
From: jon@cit-vax (Jonathan P. Leech)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Celerity evaluation
Message-ID: <10090@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 20-Apr-85 22:22:16 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.10090
Posted: Sat Apr 20 22:22:16 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 22-Apr-85 07:30:08 EST
Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA
Lines: 30


    I took advantage of the Celerity demonstration mentioned last week
and  brought  up  mined,  a  full-screen  editor  written  at  Caltech
consisting  of	roughly  20,000  lines	of  C.	  The	only   problem
encountered  was  #including  a  file  needed  by  <sys/proc.h>  which
required adding a -D flag to the compilation.	The  editor  seems  to
operate perfectly.

    In terms of the machine's performance, the	following  compilation
times and image sizes may be of  interest  (compared  to  machines  at
Caltech).

Machine 	Compilation time    Program Size
		user  system total  text    data    bss     total(dec)

Sun 2/4.2 BSD	2404 + 1612  4016   268288  38912   11640   318840
Celerity	1489 +	513  2002   544768  40960   27888   613616
VAX 780/4.2 BSD 1268 +	196  1464   221184  35840   28408   285432

    I find the claimed 2x780 performance unlikely  in  view  of  these
results (admittedly measuring only  compilation  speed).   Also,  this
machine seems to be a RISC, judging from the size of code produced and
a cursory look at the output of cc -S; alternatively, the -O switch to
cc invokes a DE-optimizer. Does anyone know for sure?

    Thanks to RIACS for the chance to evaluate the machine.

    Jon Leech
    jon@cit-vax.arpa
    __@/