Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!exodus!exodus-bb!khb From: khb@chiba.Eng.Sun.COM (()) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Compilers & SPECmarks... Message-ID: Date: 10 Apr 91 17:24:58 GMT References: <32097@shamash.cdc.com> <1991Apr9.052607.12055@news.iastate.edu> <2525@urbana.mcd.mot.com> Sender: news@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM Organization: Sun MegaSystems Lines: 24 In-reply-to: dfields@radium.urbana.mcd.mot.com's message of 9 Apr 91 17:42:38 GMT In article <2525@urbana.mcd.mot.com> dfields@radium.urbana.mcd.mot.com (David Fields) writes: ... 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. Because it provides a truly distorted component. Once upon a time, the story was told that SPEC was looking only for real codes (to avoid such pitfalls). However, MATRIX300 (simple vectorizable matrix multiply) and NASA7 (Bailey's collection of computational kernels of interest to NASA AMES) were included anyway. MATRIX300 tells us little that linpack doesn't (albeit a 300x300 rather than a 100x100, or a 1000x1000); the coding style is somewhat different so slightly different transformations yield best results. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Keith H. Bierman keith.bierman@Sun.COM| khb@chiba.Eng.Sun.COM SMI 2550 Garcia 12-33 | (415 336 2648) Mountain View, CA 94043