Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!tank!shamash!nic.MR.NET!ns!ddb
From: ddb@ns.network.com (David Dyer-Bennet)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: 80486 vs. 68040 code size
Message-ID: <1386@ns.network.com>
Date: 11 May 89 21:41:09 GMT
References: <907@aber-cs.UUCP> <4103@ficc.uu.net> <9329@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us> <420@ssp2.idca.tds.philips.nl>
Sender: ddb@ns.network.com (David Dyer-Bennet)
Reply-To: ddb@ns.UUCP (David Dyer-Bennet)
Distribution: eunet,world
Organization: Terrabit Software
Lines: 15

In article <420@ssp2.idca.tds.philips.nl> pb@idca.tds.PHILIPS.nl (Peter Brouwer) writes:
:Dhrystone figures cannot be used to compare systems performance!!!!!!!!
:Dhrystone figures are heavily influenced by the strxxx functions.
:For most unix 386 systems those functions are coded in assembler with
:the repeat instruction. 

Possibly the Dhrystone is TOO heavily influenced by strxxx functions.
However, if *all* 386 C libraries handle the strxxx functions much
better than *all* 680x0 C libraries do, I think something pretty
interesting is showing.
-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, ddb@terrabit.fidonet.org, or ddb@ns.network.com
or ddb@Lynx.MN.Org, ...{amdahl,hpda}!bungia!viper!ddb
or ...!{rutgers!dayton | amdahl!ems | uunet!rosevax}!umn-cs!ns!ddb
or Fidonet 1:282/341.0, (612) 721-8967 9600hst/2400/1200/300