Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ihuxf!dunk
From: dunk@ihuxf.UUCP (Tom Duncan)
Newsgroups: net.micro.ns32k
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: National's 32332 (Apples and oranges really)
Message-ID: <2914@ihuxf.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Jun-86 13:51:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihuxf.2914
Posted: Thu Jun 19 13:51:12 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Jun-86 06:59:45 EDT
References: <865@hoptoad.uucp> <423@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 23

> Executable file sizes, 6502 assembler program:
> 
> Intel, 8086, Microsoft C 3.0 -> 15110
> Motorola 68000, UniSoft cc   -> 19500

A number of people have pointed out that executable file size
is not a good indicator of memory resource requirements associated
with a given machine.  For example:


> 					        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.


Why not avoid this distortion by comparing "object file" size, not
"executable file" size.  That is, compile with the "-c" option.

	Tom Duncan