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

Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #27641

stdcbench STM8 compiler comparison

Show all headers | View raw

Here is a small comparison of STM8 results with various current
compilers (all done on the STM8AF5288).

SDCC 3.7.0 RC1 with optimization for code size (-mstm8 --opt-code-size
--max-allocs-per-node 100000), binary size 20953 B:

stdcbench 0.3

stdcbench c90base score: 106
stdcbench c90lib score: 87
stdcbench final score: 193

SDCC 3.7.0 RC1 with optimization for code speed  (-mstm8
--opt-code-speed --max-allocs-per-node 100000), binary size 21083 B:

stdcbench 0.3
stdcbench c90base score: 109
stdcbench c90lib score: 88
stdcbench final score: 197

IAR 3.10.1.201 with optimization for code size, binary size 24288 B:

stdcbench 0.3
stdcbench c90base score: 117
stdcbench c90lib score: 71
stdcbench final score: 188

IAR 3.10.1.201 with optimization for code speed, binary size 27268 B:

stdcbench 0.3
stdcbench c90base score: 197
stdcbench c90lib score: 100
stdcbench final score: 297

Cosmic 4.4.4 with optimization for code size:

stdcbench 0.3
stdcbench c90base score: 116
stdcbench final score: 116

Cosmic 4.4.4 with optimization for code speed:

stdcbench 0.3
stdcbench c90base score: 123
stdcbench final score: 123

For Cosmic 4.4.4, the c90lib module was disabled, since Cosmic 4.4.4
doesn't provide qsort() in the standard library. The Raisonance compiler
was not included in the comparison due to dificulties getting an
evaluation license.

These results are quite interesting when compared to Dhrystone and
Coremark (see http://www.colecovision.eu/stm8/compilers.shtml). In
particular, while SDCC is ahead in Dhrystone and Coremark scores, it
apparently falls behing in stdcbench scores. On the other hand, SDCC
seems to do better in code size for stdcbench.

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