On Sat, 17 Apr 1999, Richard Erlacher wrote:
> Well . . . There's the problem . . . first of all, the code's got to be
> executable on something everyone has got available, or it's got to be
> simulated on a simulator everyone has available, else there'll be a limit on
> interest right away . . . Then, shouldn't there be some consideration of
> the coding/debugging time involved? I'd lean in favor of a PC-compatible
> simulator. That makes the computation of actual execution time
> straightforward. . .
Not necessarily. You measure the code based on an analysis of the clock
ticks it uses. This way the competition is platform independent. Of
course a suitably platform independent code spec would need to be
developed.
> . Then there's the question about WHICH 6502 to use. Given a listing, it's
> easy enough to compute how long it takes the code to run, but which
> instruction set? What about undocumented features? Both these processors
> were famous for those. Of course, there doesn't have to be a limitation,
> i.e. one could consider ALL available cores.
This would not be limited to the 6502. The idea is to see who can come up
with the most efficient algorithm on any processor.
Sellam Alternate e-mail: dastar_at_siconic.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't rub the lamp if you don't want the genie to come out.
Coming this October 2-3: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0!
See
http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details!
[Last web site update: 04/03/99]
Received on Sat Apr 17 1999 - 15:14:36 BST