Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site tolerant.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!tolerant!kevin
From: kevin@tolerant.UUCP (Kevin Flory)
Newsgroups: net.micro.ns32k
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: National's 32332 (Apples and oranges really)
Message-ID: <370@tolerant.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 16-Jun-86 12:02:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: tolerant.370
Posted: Mon Jun 16 12:02:01 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 19-Jun-86 00:31:51 EDT
References: <746@usl.UUCP> <253@spar.UUCP> <2793@sdcrdcf.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: Tolerant Systems, Inc.  San Jose, CA
Lines: 36

> In article <367@tolerant.UUCP> kevin@tolerant.UUCP (Kevin Flory) writes:
> >
> >The National 32032, 32332, and the Motorola 680XX both have a much better 
> >instuction set than the Intel 8086, 186, 286, and 386. This may not be
> >as noticible at the machine code level, but when in compiled codes, especialy
> >'C', the National and Motorola instrucitons sets are much more efficient.
> 
> Executable file sizes, 6502 assembler program:
> 
> Intel, 8086, Microsoft C 3.0 -> 15110
> Motorola 68000, UniSoft cc   -> 19500
> 
> This is more efficient?
> 
> ----------------
> Mike Farren
> hoptoad!farren

No, not as memory space goes, but let's not compare different complilers
with different libraries and exepect people to use this as measure of
efficientcy. 

But I wasn't refering to memory space. I was refering execution, we were
talking about exectution speed. If you would like to demestrate this you
can take a compiler that either runs on both machines or one that produces
code for both processors. Write a small 'C' routine that uses number of
'C' instructions, with not many library calls. I beleive that you will
find that the 68K and the 32K are much more useful to the compiler.


 

*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
-- 
Kevin Flory @ Tolerant Systems, San Jose CA
..{bene,mordor,nsc,oliveb,pyramid,ucbvax}!tolerant!kevin