| DHRYSTONE results for Aztec C65 Commodore 64 and Apple IIe now available [message #210291] |
Sun, 15 September 2013 07:22  |
Bill Buckels
Messages: 1418
Registered: November 2012
Karma:
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Verifiable working programs including diskimages and source code now
available:
DHRYSTONE 1.1 for Aztec C65 C II Vers. 1.05h Commodore 64 cross-compiler:
http://www.aztecmuseum.ca/extras/DHRYC64.zip
DHRYSTONE 1.1 for Apple IIe ProDOS 8 Aztec C65 3.2b cross-compiler:
http://www.aztecmuseum.ca/extras/DHRY.zip
The results are as follows:
Commodore 64: 41 DHRYSTONES/SECOND
Apple IIe: 39 DHRYSTONES/SECOND
The DHRYSTONE Version 1.1 that I have used was written in 1984 one year
after C II Vers. 1.05h was released and last updated the same year that
Aztec C65 3.2b was released.
1. So how does this compare to other Commodore 64 C Compilers?
cc65 cross-compiler - 45 DHRYSTONES/SECOND
Power C native mode compiler - 36 DHRYSTONES/SECOND
The Power C 2.8 stats are right out of the DHRYSTONE source code. For cc65
stats:
http://www.cc65.org/mailarchive/2009-07/6616.html
Note: According to DHRYSTONE's author (Rick Richardson), benchmarkers must
turn-off or bypass optimizers which perform more than peephole optimization.
So cc65 stats have been downgraded by the 5 DHRYSTONES/SECOND from 50 to 45
as "verified" in the published stats (see link above) in the cc65 mailing
list to meet DHRYSTONE specifications. To paraphrase Rick, "salesmen like
the higher measure".
I am sketchy on what version of DHRYSTONE was used to obtain the cc65 stats
as well, but I am not overly concerned since cc65's DHRY results are only
marginally faster, and keeping in mind that Aztec C supports both single and
double precision floating point math with a math library included, and other
features like inline assembly this doesn't matter much to me.
AFAIK cc65 never did a comparison to Aztec C65's C64 version despite the
fact that IMO it is more than trivial for any C programmer to do so. This is
a 30 year old compiler, and it is well understood and well documented, comes
with clear examples, runs "right-out of the box", etc. Some excuses were
made but it is a poor workman who blames his tools:
http://www.cc65.org/mailarchive/2009-10/7171.html
I don't stumble through documentation either; I take time to read it. I must
be getting old, because I feel like saying "If it was good enough for
Grandpa, it's good enough for me". As for memcpy, I guess I could have used
the Aztec C equivalent but didn't need it. I used an appropriate version of
DHRY...
I am in the process of porting the older CII compiler to Aztec CG65 3.2c,
and when done I would expect almost equivalent DHRY on the C64 with either
compiler.
2. So how does this compare to other Apple IIe C compilers?
I am speculating at this point because I have no stats for cc65 for the
Apple II (just for the C64 sort-of) but if my theory is correct, and the
same ratio of 37 Apple II to 41 C64 applies to cc65, then cc65 should
come-in at 40 DHRYSTONES/SEC on the Apple II as opposed to Aztec C65 3.2b's
39 DHRYSTONES/SEC. I'll need to leave it to the cc65 people to sort that one
out. Without verifiable results for cc65, it's hard to tell.
I am comparing Apples to Bananas, so I am going to have to stick with my
theory and regard Aztec C 3.2b and cc65 as almost equivalent DHRYSTONE on
the Apple IIe unless and until verifiable results can be produced making an
honest effort to definitely prove otherwise.
With Apple IIe Aztec C65's support for a Unix like shell and command line
programs and file I/O for both DOS 3.3 and ProDOS 8, inline assembly,
floating point, ProDOS SYS programs and no need of a launcher or some other
contrivance, clearly documented overlay support etc. there seems no
compelling reason not to use Aztec C65 on the Apple IIe unless religious
fervor or some other reason is taken into account.
Best Regards,
Bill Buckels
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
