home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.dec
- Path: sparky!uunet!unislc!dold
- From: dold@unislc.uucp (Clarence Dold)
- Subject: Re: alpha memory requirements (vs vax) ?
- References: <JOHN.92Nov9101505@sekrit.WPI.EDU>
- Message-ID: <1992Nov9.172318.22005@unislc.uucp>
- Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
- Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:23:18 GMT
- Lines: 28
-
- From article <JOHN.92Nov9101505@sekrit.WPI.EDU>, by john@sekrit.WPI.EDU (John Stoffel):
-
- > (Clarence Dold) writes:
- >> ... experience in moving code from a Motorola
- >> 68040 to the Motorloa 88100 RISC set shows a substantial change in the
- >> requirement for disk space for executables, as well as run-time memory.
- >> I recall a comparison of ~20% for like code.
-
- > It's been pretty good here (we're a Beta site) for compiled binary
- > sizes. You really don't notice shared libraries for most code. Where
- > it really shines is for very grahics intensive code. We had one guy
- > who went from a 1.2 Mb on disk program to 90K on the Alpha.
-
- I think we're talking about two different animals at once. Going from
- non-shared libraries to shared can be a major win, especially if your
- X11/Motif libraries are shared (which they are not on Unisys Motorola boxes).
-
- The other issue is the size of the executables (perhaps just .o should be
- compared) for a CISC machine verses a RISC machine.
-
- In joining this thread, I am assuming that the VAX, non-alpha that we are
- talking about is a CISC machine. It appears that OSF verses VMS might also
- be part of the conversation, but on a different thread.
-
- --
- ---
- Clarence A Dold - dold@unislc.slc.Unisys.COM
- ...pyramid!ctnews!tsmiti!dold
-