Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!bywater!scifi!watson!arnor!prener!prener From: prener@watson.ibm.com (Dan Prener) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Compilers & SPECmarks... Message-ID: <1991Apr11.003110.6178@watson.ibm.com> Date: 11 Apr 91 00:31:10 GMT References: <32097@shamash.cdc.com> <1991Apr9.052607.12055@news.iastate.edu> Sender: news@watson.ibm.com (NNTP News Poster) Reply-To: prener@prener.watson.ibm.com (Dan Prener) Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center Lines: 11 Nntp-Posting-Host: prener In article <1991Apr9.052607.12055@news.iastate.edu>, john@iastate.edu (Hascall John Paul) writes: |> 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. Why is that a problem? What else could any set of benchmarks be testing but the combination of compiler and hardware (and operating system, if the benchmark isn't largely self-contained)? -- Dan Prener (prener @ watson.ibm.com)