Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!caip!cbmvax!daveh
From: daveh@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (Dave Haynie)
Newsgroups: net.micro.ns32k
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: National's 32332 (Apples and oranges really)
Message-ID: <423@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 17-Jun-86 12:57:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbmvax.423
Posted: Tue Jun 17 12:57:29 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 19-Jun-86 08:03:32 EDT
References: <865@hoptoad.uucp>
Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA
Lines: 48

> 
> 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

Well, first of all, you should be comparing implementations of the same
compiler on both machines.  And what's perhaps even more important, the
action of the linker on added library files.  Using the Lattice 3.03
compiler on the Amiga computer and Lattice's run-time library, it is
impossible to create a file much smaller than 13000 bytes.  The fault
here is not the efficiency of the compiler or the 68000 instruction set
in general, but the fact that the Lattice linker library is composed of
only a few very large object modules, and if any one function in an
object module is called, the linker includes the whole thing.  In this case,
if one could separate each function into its own object module, then place
them all in a library, the minimum code size would drop dramatically.  I
think the point of the above article was that the 68xxx and 32xxx instruction
sets will provide better overall compiled code, all other things being 
equal.  Besides testing the memory efficiency of the compiled code, take
a look at the execution efficiency; I'd expect the 68000 to do quite a bit
better than the 8086 at the same clock speed with comparable compilers,
especially with program and data spaces over 64K bytes.

-- 
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Dave Haynie    {caip,ihnp4,allegra,seismo}!cbmvax!daveh

"As a dreamer of dreams and a travellin' man, I had chalked up many a mile."
"I read dozens of books about heros and crooks, and I learned much from both 
	of their styles.."
						-Jimmy Buffett

	These opinions are my own, though for a small fee they be yours too.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/