Article View: comp.arch
Article #12150Re: CISC vs. RISC Code Sizes
From: Preston Briggs
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1991 15:23
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1991 15:23
30 lines
1562 bytes
1562 bytes
wkk@cbnewsl.att.com (wesley.k.kaplow) writes: [yet another code size comparison] >Results: > Benchmark MIPS Code Size/CRISP Code Size > ---------------------------------------------- > BSC 1.83 > Dhrystone 1.84 > RP 1.67 ... >As well as bytes/instruction average, we compared the static instruction >count as well. In our study we found that: > > Extra Instructions % in MIPS = 44%. Again, we'd _really_ like to see instruction counts. I know the MIPS compiler unrolls loops, at least sometimes. This alone makes me doubt the validity of any static instruction counts. An earlier poster noted that sometimes code size dominates all other considerations. In this case, we should consider an interpreter. Forth is one example. To an extent, CISC machines (with microcoded implementations) are another. Then there's table-driven scanners, parsers, code generators, and so forth. Choosing the right instruction set can lead to tremendous space compression (orders of magnitude). Preston Briggs
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1991Jun18.152303.1889@rice.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!think.com!mintaka!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!rice!asta.rice.edu!prestonReferences:
<1991Jun18.132315.8202@cbnewsl.att.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!think.com!mintaka!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!rice!asta.rice.edu!preston From: preston@asta.rice.edu (Preston Briggs) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: CISC vs. RISC Code Sizes Keywords: CISC RISC Size CRISP MIPS R3000 Message-ID: <1991Jun18.152303.1889@rice.edu> Date: 18 Jun 91 15:23:03 GMT References: <1991Jun18.132315.8202@cbnewsl.att.com> Sender: news@rice.edu (News) Organization: Rice University, Houston Lines: 30