Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!hpfcso!mjs
From: mjs@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Marc Sabatella)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Re: More Snake bytes. (X/MHz)
Message-ID: <8840025@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>
Date: 8 Apr 91 21:42:00 GMT
References: <12914@goofy.Apple.COM>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Lines: 10

> [re: matrix300 performance on Snakes ]
>Also, it's possible to get a factor of 2 to 3 (or more?)
>by inlining and reworking the loops extensively.
>If their compilers can do this, there will be many happy customers.

matrix300 has a big array deliberately traversed in the "wrong" order.
By simply having the compiler transforming the loops from row-major to column
major traversal, you can get huge wins.  I believe this is what happened.
This is not my favorite benchmark.  However, even if you throw out the
spiffy matrix300 number, Snakes SPECmarks look mighty good.