Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site wlbr.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!nsc!voder!wlbr!steve
From: steve@wlbr.UUCP (Steve Childress)
Newsgroups: net.micro.6809,net.micro.68k
Subject: 68xxx vs. 80xxx :-)
Message-ID: <375@wlbr.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 16-Oct-85 17:24:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: wlbr.375
Posted: Wed Oct 16 17:24:26 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 18-Oct-85 01:15:28 EDT
Organization: Eaton IMS, Westlake Village, CA
Lines: 11
Xref: watmath net.micro.6809:561 net.micro.68k:1241

Re the notion that the 68xx's use fewer instructions than 80xxx's to
 accomplish a given extent of work...

About a year ago, I compared the assembly code emitted by an 80186
Xenix (Intel) FORTRAN (they had no large-scale C) to the code produced
by a 68K C compiler.   The FORTRAN code was about TEN times as lengthy
as the C code for the 68000. The ratio of useful code to overhead code
(address arithmetic, segment switching, operand fetch/put, etc) was
about 8:1 for the 80xxx and about 3:1 for the 68000. And the code size
for the 80xxx followed suit so that the 80xxx code was quite a bit
larger even though its average instruction length was smaller.