Author: Reinhard Scharnagl
Date: 06:54:30 05/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 19, 2004 at 09:33:19, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On May 19, 2004 at 08:38:55, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote: > >>On May 19, 2004 at 07:15:54, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On May 19, 2004 at 01:02:26, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote: >>> >>>You obviously never wrote a chessprogram writing such utter nonsense at your >>>homepage about executable size. >> >>Vincent, please cool down. >> >>Obviously you know neither me nor my experiences with that theme. >> >>May be you have not noticed, that I am always talking of the size of the >>persistent data and exe AFTER COMPRESSING it, e.g. by WinRar. >> >>Regards, Reinhard. >I'm not using winrar but RKC. > >See for example : http://www.maximumcompression.com/programs.php You can choose what you want, but a self decompressing version would be best. WinRar simply has been an example. Compression should be needed only for the measuring act, that is all. >So whatever your uncompressed size, mine will be up to 4 to 10 times smaller in >size than your outdated compression standards. Great. Then 1/4 MB seems to be quite reachable for you. >If i want to compress fast i'm using 7-zip btw. > >Also a single compile option can matter 500KB in size easily. > >Further moving from x86 hardware to IPF hardware means executable size for same >program with same compiler already grows a factor 2-3. > >That's without being optimized of course with PGO. > >When you optimize with PGO your executable at IPF grows bigtime in size. > >Now so far we still discussed just C software. > >How about C++ guys, or delphi guys? > >They make no chance in your definition.... You will notice that the higher the language level is, the more you are able to compress the resulting exe. Therefore measuring the size of the compressed files would make you more independent from the decision, which language you have selected for development. Other criteria there will be more important. Regards, Reinhard. >>>>On May 19, 2004 at 00:29:42, Joshua Shriver wrote: >>>> >>>>>Are there any kind of hardware limitations in computer competitions? >>>>> >>>>>If not, I'd imagine people would just bring a small custom cluster. >>>>> >>>>>TSCP would beat Hiarcs or Shredder if tscp was parallelized and Hiarcs was on a >>>>>486. >>>>> >>>>>Just an idea; perhaps there should be some kind of limitation. >>>>>If not then you're not really testing the strength of the engines, but a >>>>>combination of code and hardware. In that case, whoever has the most money has a >>>>>huge advantage. Especially if clustering is allowed. >>>>> >>>>Just my $0.02, curious to your opinions. >>>> >>>>Have you ever seen my limitation proposal to that theme at: >>>> >>>>[http://homepages.compuserve.de/rescharn/Compu/schachfair_e.html] >>>> >>>>Regards, Reinhard.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.