[cc65] Re: Some 2.13 Benchmarks

I forgot to mention that the executable size with cc65 is about 1/2
that of Aztec.

On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Egan Ford <egan@sense.net> wrote:
> Here are the results of a few tests:
>
>                        Apple //e
>          --------------------------------------
>          INT    FP     MAF    Aztec  cc65  cc65
> Benchmark  BASIC  BASIC  Forth  C 3.2  2.12  2.13
> =========  =====  =====  =====  =====  ====  ====
> pi (atan)  ~40hr          1496   2180  1764  1514
> e (euler)                         670   559   501
> NQ struct    N/A    N/A     16   2.98  1.93  1.33
> NQ goto       37     55    N/A   2.93  1.54  1.32
> Savage       N/A    470    N/A   2664   N/A   N/A
>
> NOTE:
>
> 1.  All times reported in seconds unless otherwise noted.
> 2.  N/A = Not Applicable.  Environment does not natively support this benchmark.
>
> If you have problems with the formatting, use this URL:
> http://sense.net/~egan/perf2e.txt
>
> Observations:
>
> 1.  The poor FP performance with Aztec C may be due to higher precision.
> 2.  2.13 is measurably faster than 2.12.
> 3.  NQ struct/goto with 2.13 perform the same.  Optimization improvements.
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo@musoftware.de with
the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.