Article View: net.micro.ns32k
Article #14Re: Re: Re: National's 32332 (Really file size vs. code size)
From: jpm
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1986 16:57
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1986 16:57
26 lines
1558 bytes
1558 bytes
> >The National 32032, 32332, and the Motorola 680XX both have a much better
> >instuction set than the Intel 8086, 186, 286, and 386. This may not be
> >as noticible at the machine code level, but when in compiled codes, especialy
> >'C', the National and Motorola instrucitons sets are much more efficient.
>
> Executable file sizes, 6502 assembler program:
>
> Intel, 8086, Microsoft C 3.0 -> 15110
> Motorola 68000, UniSoft cc -> 19500
>
> This is more efficient?
>
> Mike Farren
> hoptoad!farren
Talk about apples and oranges...
You are compaing file size, which can have a lot more to do with internal
structure than code size. Unix a.out files have a lot of stuff in them
that MSDOS .EXE files do not. The larger size could easily be explained
by the difference in file structure and not by code efficiency.
--
John P. McNamee Quadratron Systems Inc.
UUCP: {sdcrdcf|ttdica|scgvaxd|mc0|bellcore|logico|ihnp4}!psivax!quad1!jpm
ARPA: jpm@BNL.ARPA
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<465@quad1.UUCP>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!quad1!jpmReferences:
<746@usl.UUCP> <253@spar.UUCP> <2793@sdcrdcf.UUCP>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!quad1!jpm From: jpm@quad1.UUCP Newsgroups: net.micro.ns32k Subject: Re: Re: Re: National's 32332 (Really file size vs. code size) Message-ID: <465@quad1.UUCP> Date: Tue, 17-Jun-86 12:57:38 EDT Article-I.D.: quad1.465 Posted: Tue Jun 17 12:57:38 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 20-Jun-86 00:17:21 EDT References: <746@usl.UUCP> <253@spar.UUCP> <2793@sdcrdcf.UUCP> Distribution: na Organization: Quadratron Systems Inc, Sherman Oaks Ca. Lines: 26