UNIX/XENIX binaries on XENIX/UNIX systems

[News Administrator]

In article <7326 at megatest.UUCP>, palowoda at 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