Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!xylogics!merk!alliant!linus!linus!eachus
From: eachus@linus.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Dhrystone/SPEC Correlational Analysis?
Message-ID: <EACHUS.90Dec31145225@aries.linus.mitre.org>
Date: 31 Dec 90 19:52:25 GMT
References: <1990Dec28.043824.28267@world.std.com> <44380@mips.mips.COM>
Sender: usenet@linus.mitre.org
Followup-To: comp.arch
Organization: The Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA
Lines: 23
Nntp-Posting-Host: aries.mitre.org
In-reply-to: rnovak@mips.COM's message of 28 Dec 90 21:39:45 GMT


     A very good starting point.  I hope, however, that you get
Dhrystone 2.1 numbers--correctly measured--to compare to.  A lot of
(C) compilers were modified to special case some of the Dhrystone 1.1
compares, especially the string operations.  While I do not fault the
majority of compiler writers who did this in a way which provides
better throughput for everyone (and also for Dhrystone 2.1), it is
more appropriate to use Dhrystone 2.1 to catch those compilers which
cheat.  (It uses all results in subsequent operations and prints the
final answers.)

     For Ada I find that Dhrystone 1.1 and 2.1 compare pretty exactly,
since the effort of compiler writers has gone into optimizing
procedure call overheads.


--

					Robert I. Eachus

with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use  STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...