info-cpm (12/08/82)
>From chesley.tsca@Sri-Tsc Wed Dec 8 00:35:14 1982
To: INFO-CPM@Mit-Mc
Via: Sri-Tsca; 7 Dec 82 11:35-PST
Via: Mit-Mc; 7 Dec 82 15:01-EST
Via: Brl; 7 Dec 82 15:20-EST
Via: Brl-Bmd; 7 Dec 82 15:23-EST
One thing to watch out for when doing BDS-C benchmarks is the
huge difference between the code generated with no switches, and that
generated with -o and -e (and making any variables that can be globals).
(The person doing the Aztec benchmark didn't mention which way he did it.)
I recently did a benchmark of BDS-C versus C/80, using the Byte
prime number program. Without -o and -e, BDS-C took 41 seconds (this is
timed from after the program loads to the next "A>" prompt (i.e., after
the reboot), and thus may not compare to other numbers times from different
points). With -o and -e, it took 17 seconds! C/80 took (if I remember
correctly) 28 seconds.
--Harry...info-cpm (12/08/82)
>From RMS.G.BANDY.MIT-OZ@BRL Wed Dec 8 13:13:16 1982
To: chesley.tsca@Sri-Tsc
Cc: INFO-CPM@Mit-Mc
In-Reply-To: Your message of 8-Dec-82 0256-EST
Via: Mit-Mc; 8 Dec 82 4:38-EST
Via: Brl; 8 Dec 82 4:54-EST
Via: Brl-Bmd; 8 Dec 82 4:59-EST
another thing to consider is BDS-C with NOBOOT installed vs BDS-C without
noboot -- a friend of mine has a H-89, and it takes 10+ secs to reboot!
(that's DISguSTING!)
-------