Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!yale!husc6!endor!singer
From: singer@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: LightspeedC 3.0 Review (long)
Message-ID: <4990@husc6.harvard.edu>
Date: 20 Jul 88 13:38:38 GMT
References: <7215@cup.portal.com> <76000259@p.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: news@husc6.harvard.edu
Reply-To: singer@endor.UUCP (Rich Siegel)
Organization: Symantec/THINK Technologies, Bedford, MA
Lines: 23

In article <76000259@p.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>
>Recently, Comp.arch listed the results of a Dhrystone test of
>different C compilers.  The results included LightspeedC, at 2467
>Dhrystones, and also Sun 3/50's, at as much as 4000+ Dhrystones on a
>16.67Mhz 68020 (gcc compiler).  So I don't think that LightspeedC is
>nearly as fast as possible.  A better compiler for the same CPU (at
>1Mhz more clocks) runs almost 8/5 as fast!  Oh well, some day we will
>have extremely efficient compilers for the macintosh.... I hope.

	I agree that LightspeedC isn't as efficient as possible,  but to
compare itts execution on a Mac II to GCC's execution on a Sun 3 is unfair,
since the two machines have fundamentally different hardware designs.

	If you want to  make a valid comparison, run gcc on a Mac II running
A/UX. There's more to a comparison than just saying "The sun 3 has the same
CPU as the Mac II, and the same clockk speed (+/- 1MHz), but LightspeedC runs
slower on the Mac II, so it must be inferior."

		--Rich

Rich Siegel
Symantec/THINK Technologies