Article View: comp.sys.mac
Article #1566Re: TLSC vs MPW C :Savage
From: Rich Siegel
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1989 20:06
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1989 20:06
28 lines
1347 bytes
1347 bytes
In article <1629@eds.ericsson.se> rif_xu@eds.ericsson.se writes: > > I have compiled the standard Byte benchmark Savage using > Think's LSC 3.01p4 on a MacII. I used the Math881lib and > the std881lib and had the flags for '881 and '020 code > generation set. It ran in 6 s. A version compiled in > MPW C 2.02 ran in 3.3 s. > Can anyone tell me why LSC generates so slow (MPW C is nearly > twice as fast) code ? > Because when '881 is turned on, MPW C generates inline FPU calls for the functions, and TLSC generates calls to the library routines. R. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Rich Siegel Staff Software Developer Symantec Corporation, Language Products Group Internet: siegel@endor.harvard.edu UUCP: ..harvard!endor!siegel "When it comes to my health, I think of my body as a temple - or at least a moderately well-managed Presbyterian youth center." - Emo Phillips ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<2236@husc6.harvard.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!husc6!endor!siegelReferences:
<1629@eds.ericsson.se>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!husc6!endor!siegel From: siegel@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: TLSC vs MPW C :Savage Message-ID: <2236@husc6.harvard.edu> Date: 18 Jul 89 20:06:49 GMT References: <1629@eds.ericsson.se> Sender: news@husc6.harvard.edu Reply-To: siegel@endor.UUCP (Rich Siegel) Organization: Symantec Language Products Group Lines: 28