Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ll-xn!husc6!seismo!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!bath63!pes
From: pes@bath63.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Lattice C vers 3.04
Message-ID: <1188@bath63.ux63.bath.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 21-May-87 05:43:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: bath63.1188
Posted: Thu May 21 05:43:58 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 23-May-87 08:16:19 EDT
References: <1175@bath63.ux63.bath.ac.uk> <1176@bath63.ux63.bath.ac.uk>
Reply-To: pes@ux63.bath.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Distribution: world
Organization: AUCC c/o University of Bath
Lines: 23


I'm not going to get a 'proper' benchmark done.  Someone else will have to do
that, sorry.  I *did* manage a quick and dirty comparison between my old
Lattice C (3.03.??) and the new one (3.04.01) using a little program which
battered the 'long float' primitives (*+-/) inside a loop.  Compilation and
link time *felt* about the same -- the proggy was really too short for
meaningful measurement of those, though, so I didn't.  The new object was
about 5% shorter than the old one, which I don't regard as significant
enough to draw general conclusions from.  The new program ran about 7 times
faster than the old one (~5 sec as compared to ~33 sec).  (And gave the same
(correct) answer.)

I've now pitched my 3.03.?? compiler so am not in a position to repeat the
tests.

P.S.'s -- As usual, I've got no connections with anyone who might profit by
my liking Lattice C.

My mini-benchmark was designed so that all the computations had to be done.
The speed increase is not some clever optimizer gutting my program.

And, maybe I've misjudged make...
Maybe it can be useful on a hard-disk-less system...