Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!qantel!intelca!oliveb!glacier!navajo!rokicki
From: rokicki@navajo.STANFORD.EDU (Tomas Rokicki)
Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga
Subject: Re: C compiler comparison
Message-ID: <902@navajo.STANFORD.EDU>
Date: Wed, 8-Oct-86 19:39:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: navajo.902
Posted: Wed Oct  8 19:39:36 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 9-Oct-86 23:59:27 EDT
References: <8610071955.AA15436@cory.Berkeley.EDU>
Organization: Stanford University
Lines: 24

[ / | \  cruisin' down . . . ]

Hi, Matt!  You write:
>
> 	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%.
>

Hell, I'd be happy to get 10-20% anytime, anywhere.

> 	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?

The PC-relative flag (which is on by default) will handle code larger
than 32K correctly; this was of major importance for me with TeX.
(Which I've gotten down to 141,220K executable; anyone know of any
smaller on *any* machine?)  It builds a jump table in the data
segment for those long jumps.

-tom