Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!udel!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!o.gp.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!na0i+
From: na0i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Nenad Antonic)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: NeXTStation Benchmark
Message-ID: <sbFn_PK00Vq241jJ8_@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: 19 Nov 90 01:17:15 GMT
Organization: Mathematics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 32


In article <1990Nov16.192938.17923@Neon.Stanford.EDU>
philip@pescadero.stanford.edu writes:
>Output from cc:
>  x = 22323.087891 (1% different from calculators)
>Output from gcc:
>  x = 0.000000 (seriously bogus)
>So - how about another round of runs, this time checking the output?


On my DECstation 3100 (andrew system at CMU) I got the following:
% gcc proba.c
% time ./a.out
x = 22323.087891 
1.2u 0.2s 0:03 47% 30+30k 3+0io 2pf+0w
% gcc -O proba.c
% time ./a.out
x = 22323.087891 
0.2u 0.0s 0:00 58% 29+29k 3+0io 2pf+0w
% cc -O proba.c
% time ./a.out
x = 22323.087891 
0.6u 0.0s 0:00 74% 30+30k 3+0io 2pf+0w

So, gcc gives correct results here. The configuration is:
16Mb memory, RZ23 hard drive, server for the rest (including .).

At the run time I had X-windows on, and a bunch of other things
(45% of virtual memory being used). That did not slow down the
computations.

	Nenad Antoni\'c