Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!quad1!jpm
From: jpm@quad1.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro.ns32k
Subject: Re: Re: Re: National's 32332 (Really file size vs. code size)
Message-ID: <465@quad1.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 17-Jun-86 12:57:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: quad1.465
Posted: Tue Jun 17 12:57:38 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Jun-86 00:17:21 EDT
References: <746@usl.UUCP> <253@spar.UUCP> <2793@sdcrdcf.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: Quadratron Systems Inc, Sherman Oaks Ca.
Lines: 26

> >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

Talk about apples and oranges...

You are compaing file size, which can have a lot more to do with internal
structure than code size.  Unix a.out files have a lot of stuff in them
that MSDOS .EXE files do not.  The larger size could easily be explained
by the difference in file structure and not by code efficiency.
-- 
John P. McNamee					Quadratron Systems Inc.

UUCP: {sdcrdcf|ttdica|scgvaxd|mc0|bellcore|logico|ihnp4}!psivax!quad1!jpm
ARPA: jpm@BNL.ARPA