Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!leah!rpi!crdgw1!steinmetz!sungod!davidsen
From: davidsen@sungod.steinmetz (William Davidsen)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: 80486 vs. 68040 code size
Message-ID: <13738@steinmetz.ge.com>
Date: 3 May 89 19:56:19 GMT
References: <902@aber-cs.UUCP>
Sender: news@steinmetz.ge.com
Reply-To: davidsen@sungod.UUCP (William Davidsen)
Distribution: eunet,world
Organization: General Electric CRD, Schenectady, NY
Lines: 19

In article <902@aber-cs.UUCP> pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:
|In article <13718@steinmetz.ge.com> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes:
|    
|      This totally mystifies me. Did someone bring in some MS-DOS figures?
|    My figures were clearly for Xenix, and I clearly stated the versions and
|    stuff (I think the info was quoted and appears above).
|
|But the comparisons you made may still be apple vs. oranges... I have the
|strong suspicion that you compared executable sizes, which tipically include

  The conditions I used were stated in the original posting in great
detail. I leave it to the reader to decide the value of the results
posted, but I clearly didn't try to compare MS-DOS and SunOS as the
poster implied. I used the best 386 and best 68k compiler to which I
have access, and made no claims or deductions from the results.

  Everything I have seen indicates that you are correct in assuming
5-10% smaller code (text segment) for the 386 *using compilers available
to me*.