Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mordor.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!mordor!jdb
From: jdb@mordor.UUCP (John Bruner)
Newsgroups: net.micro,net.arch
Subject: Re: What if IBM Had chosen the 68000? Not what you think
Message-ID: <4467@mordor.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 21-Nov-85 11:45:28 EST
Article-I.D.: mordor.4467
Posted: Thu Nov 21 11:45:28 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 23-Nov-85 10:25:33 EST
References: <129@intelca.UUCP> <392@aum.UUCP> <225@l5.uucp> <533@scirtp.UUCP> <6139@utzoo.UUCP> <426@ecn-pc.UUCP> <930@homxb.UUCP>
Reply-To: jdb@mordor.UUCP (John Bruner)
Organization: S-1 Project, LLNL
Lines: 17
Xref: linus net.micro:11551 net.arch:1934

>I didn't really want to get dragged into this, but a comparison of the sizes
>of executables (using size(1), and only adding up .text) of the stuff in
>/bin and /usr/bin on a 68k UNIX (Sun-2) versus a 286 UNIX SYS V shows that the
>286 binaries are only 65% of the size of the 68k binaries.  I think Brad's
>argument *is* valid.

While the 68010 may not achieve the code density of a 286, the difference
you are seeing is greatly exaggerated.  It would be much fairer for you
to compare two System V ports.  Sun's executables are much bigger than
they should be.  (As an experiment, try compiling and linking the program
"main(){}" and see how big the executable is.  Link it "-N" to avoid
page-alignment of data and bss which makes text and data appear larger
than they really are.)
-- 
  John Bruner (S-1 Project, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory)
  MILNET: jdb@mordor [jdb@s1-c.ARPA]	(415) 422-0758
  UUCP: ...!ucbvax!dual!mordor!jdb 	...!seismo!mordor!jdb