Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ll-xn!ames!ptsfa!ihnp4!homxb!gemini
From: gemini@homxb.UUCP (Rick Richardson)
Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.sys.nsc.32k
Subject: Re: Re: the NS32532
Message-ID: <219@homxb.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 14-Apr-87 05:42:36 EST
Article-I.D.: homxb.219
Posted: Tue Apr 14 05:42:36 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 18-Apr-87 23:46:07 EST
References: <4190@nsc.nsc.com> <951@moscom.UUCP> <2577@intelca.UUCP>
Organization: PC Research, Inc.
Lines: 40
Summary: Oh Shit, Greenhills is optimizing?
Xref: mnetor comp.arch:960 comp.sys.nsc.32k:77

In article <2577@intelca.UUCP>, clif@intelca.UUCP (Clif Purkiser) writes:
> While, I agree that using a global optimizing compiler is not exactly
> kosher for the dhrystone benchmark it sometimes neccessary.  For 
> instance: the GreenHills C compiler is a globally optimizing compiler
> which generates good Dhrystone numbers for many architectures including
> the 80386 and 68020.	 Unfortunately, I can not find a compiler
> switch to turn off the global optimizer.

Is this true?  I have many results using the GreenHills compiler which
are not marked as having a global optimizer turned on.  Are you sure
there's no switch to turn it off?  

I've been watching these benchmark wars for awhile now, and frankly, I'm
a little upset that I put myself in the middle as referee.  With all these
new chips and super hot compilers, I've lost confidence in the validity
of many of the results that have been sent to me.  I used to get
results from Joe Engineer; now I'm getting them from Montague F. Salesman.
And with the way the optimizing technology is taking off, I expect to
see a Commodore 64 reporting 50,000 dhrystones by years end :-).

Here's the plea: turn off the optimizer and send the results marked
no opt, turn on the optimizer and send the results w/<LEVEL> opt, where
<LEVEL> indicates peephole, global, read-programmers-mind, or whatever.
If it can't be turned off, say so.  Meanwhile, any advice on modifying
the Dhrystone for version 1.2 such that a global optimizer won't be
able to remove anything will be appreciated.

And remember, folks, that a test of compiler A/machine A versus
compiler A/machine B is valid.  Compiler A/machine A versus
compiler B/machine A is also valid.  Compiler A/machine A versus
compiler B/machine B is probably invalid if seeking the truth
about machine A/B's relative power, but may be valid if your
goal is to put 147 users on the machine whose only use is to
run the benchmark.


Rick Richardson, PC Research, Inc: (201) 922-1134  ..!ihnp4!castor!pcrat!rick
	         when at AT&T-CPL: (201) 834-1378  ..!ihnp4!castor!polux!rer

[I know those compiler writers...they LOVE to change things]