From: hardwork AT freemail DOT c3 DOT hu Newsgroups: alt.lang.asm,comp.os.msdos.djgpp,comp.lang.asm.x86,alt.os.assembly Subject: Re: Benchmarking of NASM Date: 11 Jul 1999 05:37:18 GMT Organization: The Dragon List Lines: 44 Approved: Message-ID: <7m9aie$1k2$1@autumn.news.rcn.net> References: <7m645n$f0a$1 AT autumn DOT news DOT rcn DOT net> <7m7igj$1gv$11 AT autumn DOT news DOT rcn DOT net> X-Trace: okYMPNEdjzLchtee5AaMnK9YMxWSUSnt134+bccWJ9Y= X-Complaints-To: abuse AT rcn DOT com NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 Jul 1999 05:37:18 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.07 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.36 i686) X-Mozilla-Status: 0801 X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 www.proxymate.com:8000 (Apache/1.3.6), 1.0 x22.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 204.178.22.18 X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Jul 11 02:16:28 1999 GMT To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com 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.