Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!apple!motcsd!udc!radium.urbana.mcd.mot.com!dfields From: dfields@radium.urbana.mcd.mot.com (David Fields) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Compilers & SPECmarks... Message-ID: <2525@urbana.mcd.mot.com> Date: 9 Apr 91 17:42:38 GMT References: <32097@shamash.cdc.com> <1991Apr9.052607.12055@news.iastate.edu> Sender: netnews@urbana.mcd.mot.com Reply-To: dfields@urbana.mcd.mot.com Lines: 31 In article <1991Apr9.052607.12055@news.iastate.edu>, john@iastate.edu (Hascall John Paul) writes: < stuff about CDC/KAI improvement of the matrix300 portion of the SPEC > < suite deleted > |>This is the important factor, it would be nice to have a goodly |>number more than 10 tests... SPEC has been soliciting test from the general public for a good while and John Mashey and others have asked here. I'm sure SPEC would be willing to listen if you would like to donate some reasonably large, portable and real codes. |>}HP9000/730 gets a score of 273 on this test, which raises its SPEC ... |> |> Is it time to axe "matrix300" from the SPECsuite? This makes the |>second instance (others?) of SPECnum which can only be explained by |>a compiler significantly reducing the problem. |> |> Also, I seem to recall there was another one on which the Snake SPEC |>was "out of character" (100+ while most of the rest were 30s or 40s)? |> I suppose that program suffers similarly? While I realize at least some of the limitations of the matrix300 test, I have gotten the impression the some limited number of real codes do have at least portions which are vectorizable (sic). If that's true then I don't see why any one who doesn't believe in the "One True Number" has a problem with it. Dave Fields // Motorola Computer Group // dfields@urbana.mcd.mot.com