Mail Archives: djgpp/1999/07/11/11:35:43
In article <7m7igj$1gv$11 AT autumn DOT news DOT rcn DOT net>, jcoffin AT taeus DOT com (Jerry
Coffin) wrote:
> > Please forgive me if this has been mentioned before.
> > Is there any benchmark we can run to compare the performance of
> > NASM with other x86 assemblers like A86, MASM, TASM and
> > OPTASM?
> I haven't got solid numbers from a benchmark, but NASM is NOT a
> particularly fast assembler -- the most recent versions of the others
> are clustered close enough together that you have to keep pretty
> close track of the exact system in which tests are conducted before
> they mean anything at all (though, of course, the most recent version
> of optasm isn't really very recent at all). NASM is slower than the rest
> by a fairly wide margin. Of course, on a modern computer, you're
> unlikely to notice much real difference unless you're assembling a
> LOT of code.
> The number and size of files you use will make a difference as well --
> MASM (for example) takes a while to load and start up, but assembles
> really fast once it's working. NASM tends to load faster, but doesn't
> run terribly fast.
> Therefore, if you have a small number of really large files, MASM will
> win by a large margin. If you have a lot of smaller files, things will
> be much closer, though I'm pretty sure MASM will still normally win.
Thank you sir, for your reply.
It's a grand shame that OPTASM never had a chance to get into 32-bit world. I
really miss its correct implementation of multi-pass.
Thanks again, sir.
Bob
hardwork AT freemail DOT c3 DOT hu
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
- Raw text -