Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #27636

Re: A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench

Show all headers | View raw

Am 09.02.2018 um 22:28 schrieb Paul Rubin:
> Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> writes:
>> Output for a 98 Mhz C8051F120 (compiled via sdcc -mmcs51 --model-large
> 
> Was that really supposed to say 98 mhz?

Yes. 24 Mhz from the internal oscillator, multiplied by 4 via the PLL.
the C8051 is rated at 100 Mhz.

> 
> Can you say the code size for the different compiler outputs?

I'll report exact number when I have a bigger range of results. But for
now, it seems that code size on the MCS-51 is about twice that of STM8
when using the same features (i.e c90lib module enabled or disabled for
both targets).

> 
> Could you do the AVR8 the and MSP430 with gcc, if you happen to have
> those available?  Would the ARM Cortex M0 be getting outside the
> intended range of this benchmark?

The M0 definitely falls into the intended range. However, I don't have
any around at the moment.
I intend to do a few more benchmarks with what I have, probably next
weekend or during the week after:

* STM8AF5288 @ 16 Mhz using SDCC 3.5.0, 3.6.0, 3.7.0, some IAR and
Cosmic compilers and various optimization settings
* C8051F120 @ 98 Mhz using SDCC 3.5.0, 3.6.0, 3.7.0 and various
optimization settings
* STM8S208 @ 24 Mhz
* Z80 @ 3.58 Mhz (in the Sega Master System II or Sega Mark III)
* CYC68013A @ 48 Mhz (a 8051-derivative from Cypress)

I also intend to get a few more boards to compare (at least Cortex M0
and RISC-V).

Philipp

Back to comp.arch.embedded | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2018-02-07 16:49 +0100
  Re: A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench raimond.dragomir@gmail.com - 2018-02-08 22:36 -0800
    Re: A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2018-02-09 20:48 +0100
      Re: A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2018-02-09 13:28 -0800
        Re: A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench Stef <stef33d@yahooI-N-V-A-L-I-D.com.invalid> - 2018-02-10 01:26 +0100
        Re: A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2018-02-10 18:47 +0100
          Re: A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2018-02-10 21:32 +0200
            Re: A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2018-02-10 20:40 +0100
        Re: A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2018-02-20 14:00 +0100
          Re: A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench raimond.dragomir@gmail.com - 2018-02-20 05:13 -0800
            Re: A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2018-02-20 14:38 +0100
              Re: A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2018-02-20 15:27 +0100
                Re: A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench Jack <jack4747@gmail.com> - 2018-02-20 07:14 -0800
                Re: A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2018-02-20 17:30 +0100
                Re: A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2018-03-05 19:59 +0100
                Re: A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2018-02-20 20:58 +0100
                Re: A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench raimond.dragomir@gmail.com - 2018-02-20 23:37 -0800
                Re: A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2018-02-21 09:29 +0100
                Re: A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-02-21 11:01 +0100
          Re: A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2018-02-20 21:37 +0200
            Re: A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench raimond.dragomir@gmail.com - 2018-02-20 23:42 -0800
      Re: A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench raimond.dragomir@gmail.com - 2018-02-10 22:48 -0800
        Re: A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2018-02-11 13:22 -0800
      stdcbench STM8 compiler comparison Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2018-02-11 19:20 +0100
        Re: stdcbench STM8 compiler comparison Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2018-02-11 23:29 +0000
          Re: stdcbench STM8 compiler comparison Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2018-02-12 07:13 +0100

csiph-web