Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site opus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!gatech!seismo!hao!nbires!opus!rcd
From: rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn)
Newsgroups: net.micro,net.arch
Subject: Re: What if IBM Had chosen the 68000?...
Message-ID: <261@opus.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 22-Nov-85 04:27:16 EST
Article-I.D.: opus.261
Posted: Fri Nov 22 04:27:16 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 24-Nov-85 07:31:14 EST
References: <129@intelca.UUCP> <392@aum.UUCP> <225@l5.uucp> <533@scirtp.UUCP> <6139@utzoo.UUCP> <930@homxb.UUCP>
Organization: NBI,Inc, Boulder CO
Lines: 17
Xref: watmath net.micro:12807 net.arch:2149

> 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.

If you compare sizes, you're not just comparing processors.  You're
comparing compilers (as well??? mostly???)

My comparisons show that 186 code is about 70% larger than 68010 code...but
I'm going against my preceding argument.  186 code <<as generated by the
Intermetrics C compiler>> is about 70% larger than 68010 code <<as
generated by OUR 68010 compiler>> when measured <<on the set of test cases
which concerned me at that time>>.
-- 
Dick Dunn	{hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd		(303)444-5710 x3086
   ...If you get confused just listen to the music play...