Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!crest.crhc.uiuc.edu!conte
From: conte@crest.crhc.uiuc.edu (Tom Conte)
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks
Subject: Re: PERFECT rumor
Message-ID: <1990Dec19.190758.8285@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 19 Dec 90 19:07:58 GMT
References: <6439@mace.cc.purdue.edu>
Sender: news@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News)
Reply-To: conte@crest.crhc.uiuc.edu (Tom Conte)
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois
Lines: 22

In article <6439@mace.cc.purdue.edu>, abe@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Vic Abell) writes:
> I have been asked if I have heard that several vendors have had to
> resubmit their PERFECT club reports.  I haven't heard anything, and
> I don't even know if the rumor suggests that previously submitted
> reports were erroneous.
> 

Although I haven't heard about this, I want to point out it is difficult
to `violate' the run rules for the PERFECT club.  Unlike SPEC, the PERFECT
club allows modification of the code for vectorization, parallelization,
etc. (including hand modification). It's part of the philosophy: monkey
around with the code as much as you wish to make it run well on your machine,
just make sure the results are the same.  For me, this makes PERFECT club
numbers rather hard to interpret.

------
Tom Conte	  Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing
 conte@uiuc.edu   University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois
 I worry about insects: I bet the dinosaurs had `mammal exterminators'

 DISCLAIMER: (ug) opinions expressed are my own and not associated
  in any way with the University, CSRD, or the PERFECT club people