Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #27649
| From | Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.arch.embedded |
| Subject | Re: A new benchmark suitable for small systems: stdcbench |
| Date | 2018-02-20 14:38 +0100 |
| Organization | solani.org |
| Message-ID | <p6h8c3$h4o$1@solani.org> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <ba4efacb-efe3-4b1a-a6d6-aa1a8f9ef441@googlegroups.com> <p5ktud$3c7$1@solani.org> <87fu69etu1.fsf@nightsong.com> <p6h65j$fqq$1@solani.org> <062d7d94-2806-4f08-99b2-652a5d57da21@googlegroups.com> |
Am 20.02.2018 um 14:13 schrieb raimond.dragomir@gmail.com: > marți, 20 februarie 2018, 15:00:41 UTC+2, Philipp Klaus Krause a scris: >> 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 > > You can try an -Os variant to see what difference you get. Not much: stdcbench 0.3 stdcbench c90base score: 1047 stdcbench c90lib score: 607 stdcbench final score: 1654 > It would be in fact quite interesting. I always thought that > -O2 speed gain is not much than the -Os, and so always use -Os ... > > Can you do some (8bit) AVR tests? > 'Don't have one yet, but intend to do a Cortex-M3 and maybe a Z80 test later this week. At some point, I should also put a list of results on http://stdcbench.org/ Philipp
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