Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site usl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtune!akguc!akgua!usl!elg
From: elg@usl.UUCP (Eric Lee Green)
Newsgroups: net.micro.ns32k
Subject: Re: National's 32332 (Apples and oranges really)
Message-ID: <779@usl.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Jun-86 17:34:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: usl.779
Posted: Thu Jun 19 17:34:23 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Jun-86 10:59:46 EDT
References: <746@usl.UUCP> <253@spar.UUCP> <2793@sdcrdcf.UUCP>
Reply-To: elg@usl.UUCP (Eric Lee Green)
Distribution: na
Organization: USL, Lafayette, LA
Lines: 27
Summary: code size isn't good measure -- Different instruction sizes!

In article <865@hoptoad.uucp> farren@hoptoad.UUCP (Mike Farren) writes:
>In article <367@tolerant.UUCP> kevin@tolerant.UUCP (Kevin Flory) writes:

>>... 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
>

The 68000 uses 16-bit instructions. The 8086 uses 8 bit instructions,
with many of them having postbytes but not all. You need to look at
the number of machine instructions, not the number of bytes. Remember,
the 68000 is a 16/32 bit machine, while an 8086 is an 8/16 bit machine.

Also note that the difference in operating system and compiler is just
as likely to make a difference in code size as a different processor.

Please, people, these religious quarrels get tiresome... this is
ns32k, not net.flame.
-- 
Computing from the Bayous,
       Eric Green {akgua,ut-sally}!usl!elg
            (Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191, Lafayette, LA 70509)