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