Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!polyslo!cquenel
From: cquenel@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (24 more school days)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: 80486 vs. 68040 code size
Message-ID: <10979@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>
Date: 3 May 89 19:18:48 GMT
References: <902@aber-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: cquenel@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (24 more school days)
Distribution: eunet,world
Organization: Blue Blaze Irregulars
Lines: 26

In 9681 pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) sez:
>Both compilers used are highly optimizing.
>
>The 68020 has more registers than the 386, but this ought to count for
>little, as according to literature the knee of the curve for C is before or
>at 4 registers (important note: for typical Unix utilities, e.g. excluding
>floating point) because of the average simplicity of C expressions.

	Hahahahah ha ha ha ha ha. 
	Oh. excuse me. (chuckle)
	I can't help myself.

	Highly optimizing compilers have long been able to make very
	good use of more than four registers.

>Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi           | ARPA: pcg%cs.aber.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
>Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth        | UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!aber-cs!pcg
>Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk



-- 
@---@  -----------------------------------------------------------------  @---@
\. ./  | Chris (The Lab Rat) Quenelle      cquenel@polyslo.calpoly.edu |  \. ./
 \ /   |  You can keep my things, they've come to take me home -- PG   |   \ / 
==o==  -----------------------------------------------------------------  ==o==