Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!nike!oliveb!hplabs!ucbvax!CORY!dillon
From: dillon@CORY (Matt Dillon)
Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga
Subject: Re: C compiler comparison
Message-ID: <8610071955.AA15436@cory.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Tue, 7-Oct-86 15:55:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: cory.8610071955.AA15436
Posted: Tue Oct  7 15:55:45 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 8-Oct-86 08:17:38 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 37

>Phil Staub writes
>I use the Manx compiler with the +l option almost exclusively, and typically
>find that (at least on some of the code supplied on the Fish disks) I still
>only wind up with about half the amount of code as the Lattice version. I
>suspect this is due to the library problems you mentioned. I normally find
>only minimal code size increase from 16 to 32 bit ints.

	This is exclusively due to Lattice's current LC.LIB.  However, from
people who've compiled my shell w/ Manx, the code *is* smaller, but only
by about 10-20%.

>>	Talking to Jay Denebeim (sysop for the BBS w/carries Blink), Lattice's
>>3.04 compiler will have PC relative addressing modes for calls and jumps, and
>>relative addressing through an address register for static/global variables.
>>He pointed out that this would mean that I could make my shell and any other
>>program re-entrant without any problem.  This will also, incidently, probably
>>make the code more compact than Manx as Lattice already has some great
>>optimization hacks in the compiler.
>>
>
>Manx 3.20a already uses these optimizations if small code and data models
>are used (the default).

	I used Lattice on an IBM system... couldn't stand the FOUR memory
models.  But on an 8086/8 you don't have much choice since the registers
aren't 32 bits and you have that idiotic segmentation scheme.  One of the
reasons C on the 680x0 is *so* much better is that you don't really have
to worry about code size.  The pointer problem that occured with 8086/8
doesn't exist.  

	The 68000 and 68010 do, however, limit the address space for 
PC relative operations.  Does MANX's flag for PC-RELATIVE addressing
on absolute calls require that the code be smaller than 32K? Or will
it employ some sort of relative jump table for calls beyond the addressing
range?

					-Matt