Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!ames!pioneer!eugene
From: eugene@pioneer.arpa (Eugene Miya N.)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Dhrystones vs. Optimizing compilers
Message-ID: <1281@ames.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 16-Apr-87 03:40:41 EST
Article-I.D.: ames.1281
Posted: Thu Apr 16 03:40:41 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 19-Apr-87 05:17:54 EST
References: <4190@nsc.nsc.com> <951@moscom.UUCP> <2577@intelca.UUCP> <104@unc.unc.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ames.UUCP
Reply-To: eugene@pioneer.UUCP (Eugene Miya N.)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.
Lines: 23
Summary: Not quite that radical

In article <104@unc.unc.UUCP> rentsch@unc.UUCP (Tim Rentsch) writes:
>
>So, here is my vote for benchmark programs which are not prone to
>huge improvements through global optimization.  

Well, I won't go that ... far.  That tends to imply that a user knows a
lot about a machine.  I've been looking at huge code restructuring
lately. GO should be something you are at least aware of and be prepared
to compare states.  Try to run with optimization turned off for
instance.  This was something we discussed at a Bay Area ACM/SIGGRAPH
performance meeting today.  Present both numbers.  My concept right now
is for virtual MachoIPS and MachoFLOPs versus real MachoFLOPS and
MachoIPS with the ratio as a comparison of optimization quality.  Note:
I might not thing this next week.

From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."
  {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene