Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!sgi!shinobu!odin!tigger.asd.sgi.com!streich From: streich@tigger.asd.sgi.com (Mark Streich) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Compilers & SPECmarks... Message-ID: <1991Apr13.190644.2347@odin.corp.sgi.com> Date: 13 Apr 91 19:06:44 GMT References: <32097@shamash.cdc.com> <8840027@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> Sender: news@odin.corp.sgi.com (Net News) Reply-To: streich@tigger.asd.sgi.com (Mark Streich) Organization: sgi Lines: 21 In article <8840027@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>, mjs@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Marc Sabatella) writes: |> > 2. A number based on how many integer and floating point operations |> > the program *actually* performs when being run. Instead of getting |> > "credit" for the number of operations to be executed as defined by |> > the source code, "credit" is given for the runtime frequency of ops |> > in the executable. |> |> Two obvious flaws: |> |> a) How on earth would you measure that? Have someone disasseble the compiled |> code and hand trace its execution, counting operations? Or perhaps supply |> hand coded assembly versions of the program for each architecture? There are tools to do exactly this. There were a number of papers presented at the recent ASPLOS IV that counted the frequency of instructions in the SPEC benchmarks for different architectures. Mark Streich streich@sgi.com #include