Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!udel!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!o.gp.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!ea08+
From: ea08+@andrew.cmu.edu (Eric A. Anderson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: NeXTStation Benchmark
Message-ID: <obFjTbS00Vp50k61pn@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: 18 Nov 90 21:06:47 GMT
References: <743@kaos.MATH.UCLA.EDU>,
	<1990Nov16.192938.17923@Neon.Stanford.EDU>
Distribution: na
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 34
In-Reply-To: <1990Nov16.192938.17923@Neon.Stanford.EDU>

There is actually a more fundamental problem with this benchmark: CSH
does not have the accuracy to measure the output.
When people report times of .2 sec using csh, on a decstation, they
would find times of about .245 seconds using tcsh.  This is a serious
problem, as the version run on the sparcstation 2 reporting a time of .1
sec could actually be up to about .145 or more if csh just truncates the
times.
But the version of the program run under gcc on my machine gives the
correct output.
One thing I can't figure out is this: The float version runs faster than
the double version, but when I look at the assembler version of the code
I see this

Float Version :
cvt float to double
mult double
cvt double to float.

And in the Double version just
mult double.

It doesn't seem to make sense that the float version would be faster. 

And so that you know, the double version of the program claims.
x= 22025.144256

          -Eric
*********************************************************
"My life is full of additional complications spinning around until
 it makes my head snap off."
           -Unc. Known.
"You are very smart, now shut up."
           -In "The Princess Bride"
*********************************************************