Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #27653
| From | Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.arch.embedded |
| Subject | Re: A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench |
| Date | 2018-02-20 21:37 +0200 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <p6htdm$1bd$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <p5f776$aco$1@solani.org> <ba4efacb-efe3-4b1a-a6d6-aa1a8f9ef441@googlegroups.com> <p5ktud$3c7$1@solani.org> <87fu69etu1.fsf@nightsong.com> <p6h65j$fqq$1@solani.org> |
On 20.2.18 15:00, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote: > 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? >> >> Can you say the code size for the different compiler outputs? >> >> 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? >> >> Thanks! >> > > Here's a first reuslt from an ARM Cortex-M0 (the STM32F051R8 at 48 Mhz) > compiled using GCC 6.3.1 with -O2 and using newlib-nano: > > stdcbench 0.3 > stdcbench c90base score: 1141 > stdcbench c90lib score: 651 > stdcbench final score: 1792 > > Per clock cycle, this Cortex-M0 with GCC gets about twice the score > compared to an STM8 with IAR. > Interesting is the large difference between the c90base and the c90lib > score. I guess newlib-nanao is optimized for code size at the expense of > speed (even though it is surprising to see that much of a difference vs. > the situation for the STM8). > > Philipp > GCC -Os does wonders compared to the standard compiled newlib. -- -TV
Back to comp.arch.embedded | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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