Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!ABN.ISCAMS@usc-isid.arpa
From: ABN.ISCAMS@usc-isid.arpa
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: Nice 16-bit BenchMarker
Message-ID: <2831@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 4-Nov-85 21:49:15 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.2831
Posted: Mon Nov  4 21:49:15 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 7-Nov-85 06:21:39 EST
Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA
Lines: 20

Michal,

I wasn't the LEAST bit interested in optimized code, clean code, or even
logical code .. just in how long it would take a machine (any machine) to
run this particular application given the SAME compiler.

Don't care if it's a 68000 emulating MS-DOS, an 8086 .. just will it
compile Turbo Pascal under MS-DOS and run the code?

The intent here was pure CPU/clock interaction (and maybe a little side
effect from MS-DOS implementations).  If it's a Cray running an MS-DOS
emulation, AND it can compile under Turbo Pascal 2.0 or 3.0 .. fine by
me.  What struck me was the interesting comparison of V20 and FAST 8086
times for different types of bit and byte fiddling, and how my 80286
stacked up against them.

Regards,
David Kirschbaum
Toad Hall
ABN.ISCAMS@USC-ISID