clay@uci.UUCP (News Administrator) (08/23/89)
In article <7227@megatest.UUCP>, palowoda@megatest.UUCP (Bob Palowoda) writes: > > If it going to be compiled with MSC that it's got to go through > the 286/386 emulator and that slows things down. At least I > notice it. It would be great if SCO offers packages compiled > with your choice of compilier. > > ---Bob I knew that (on uport, at least) an emlulator was used to run 286 binaries of any type. But is an emulator used for 386 code? I'm running uport's Text Processing system under XENIX 386 2.3.1 now with no performance hits, as well as binaries I compile up under Green Hills C. On the opposite side, at work we're running some XENIX 386 code under ISC with no noticeable performance hits. Not sure about the 286 binaries, tho... What we HAVE decided is that this binary compatibility stuff is a GREAT idea. -- Clayton Haapala ...!mmm!dicome!uci!clay Unified Communications Inc. 3001 Metro Drive - Suite 500 "Revenge is better than Christmas" Bloomington, MN 55425 -- Elvira
palowoda@megatest.UUCP (Bob Palowoda) (08/25/89)
From article <610@uci.UUCP>, by clay@uci.UUCP (News Administrator): > In article <7227@megatest.UUCP>, palowoda@megatest.UUCP (Bob Palowoda) writes: >> > > I knew that (on uport, at least) an emlulator was used to run 286 binaries > of any type. But is an emulator used for 386 code? I'm running uport's ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I'm sorry your right. > Text Processing system under XENIX 386 2.3.1 now with no performance hits, > as well as binaries I compile up under Green Hills C. > > with no noticeable performance hits. Not sure about the 286 binaries, tho... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ With programs like 'compress it's really noticeable. > > What we HAVE decided is that this binary compatibility stuff is a GREAT idea. I agree with that. It saved me from alot of downtime. Speaking of compiliers. What's the C-compilier like under 2.3 Xenix? Or should I say do you run into any problems like the one under 2.2 (286). ---Bob -- Bob Palowoda *Home of Fiver BBS* login: bbs Work: {sun,decwrl,pyramid}!megatest!palowoda Home: {sun}ys2!fiver!palowoda (A XBBS System) 2-lines BBS: (415)623-8809 2400/1200 (415)623-8806 1200/2400/9600/19200
clay@uci.UUCP (News Administrator) (08/28/89)
In article <7326@megatest.UUCP>, palowoda@megatest.UUCP (Bob Palowoda) writes: > > What we HAVE decided is that this binary compatibility stuff is a GREAT idea. > > I agree with that. It saved me from alot of downtime. Speaking of > compiliers. What's the C-compilier like under 2.3 Xenix? Or should > I say do you run into any problems like the one under 2.2 (286). > > -- > Bob Palowoda *Home of Fiver BBS* login: bbs The main problem I've found with the 2.3 (386) compiler is "infinite spill" messages from large files (like from conquer or nethack). Many of the binaries I've created with the new compiler are faster than those form Green Hills C. And they are always smaller, probably due to differences in bss allocation. My favorite speed benchmark is to use Daniel Lawrence's Micro Emacs editor, read in a large file (like main.c from 3.9), use the indent macro to indent the whole thing and time it. Using the 2.3 286 cross-compiler to remake the 286 version, the time went from 26 seconds to around 12! Other times with other compilers: Green Hills 386 5.5 seconds (smokes!) SCO 2.3 386 ~7 or 8 MicroVAX II >17 seconds (I'd be embarassed) I figure this "benchmark" has a good instruction mix, and also includes lots of memory management, what with interpretation of the macro, reallocation of lines, etc. -- Clayton Haapala ...!mmm!dicome!uci!clay Unified Communications Inc. 3001 Metro Drive - Suite 500 "Revenge is better than Christmas" Bloomington, MN 55425 -- Elvira