Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!amdahl!pyramid!hplabs!hp-pcd!hplsla!jima
From: jima@hplsla.HP.COM (              Jim Adcock)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: D(h)rystone benchmarks on C++, G++
Message-ID: <6590050@hplsla.HP.COM>
Date: 30 Apr 88 00:53:49 GMT
References: <8804261629.AA28425@blueberry.inria.fr>
Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA
Lines: 52


Here's some results for running this "C++" compatible version
of Dhrystone program on various hp machines I have around
me.  Other than on my 320 system the "C++" results were
generated by transferring the ..c intermediate file to
the target machine, changing _new to malloc and removing
_main, then compiling on that machines available "cc"
compilers.  The definition of "HZ" was changed to match the
respective HP machines -- 50Hz for HP series 300, 100Hz for
HP series 800.  Caveat: I do not believe these results are
particularly useful for comparing the relative merits of
cc compilers, C++ compilers, or various host machines if
the results are at all similar in speed.  If the results 
are radically different [>2X], then maybe these kinds of tests
CAN be considered somewhat meaningful in comparing compilers
and machines.  The HP320 is a mid-range 68020 based engineering
workstation.  The HP350 is a high-range 68020 based engineering
workstation.  The 840 and 850 are engineering minicomputers
based on HP's new proprietory "RISC" architecture.  The HP320
is the machine I have presently, which explains why more 
benchmarks are available for it.  These results were generated
"casually", just for my own edification and amusement, and shouldn't
be considered gospel.  In my opinion, this test program is not
doing a good job of exercising the power/lack-of-power available
in the various compilers optimization routines.  Compile and
test some "real-world" C++ routines, like oopslib, to "seriously"
compare C++ compilers.  Better yet, run comparisons using the
kind of programs you really write.


CPU	Compiler[s]				     "Dhrystones"

HP320	CC 1.11 / HP-UX 6.0 cc				 2083
HP320	CC 1.11 / HP-UX 6.0 cc -O			 2181
HP320	g++ 1.18					 2194
HP320	g++ 1.18 -O					 2194
HP320	g++ 1.18 -O -fomit-frame-pointer 
		    -finline-functions 	 		 2203
HP320	CC 1.11 / Microtec 3.0 [options unknown]	 2278
HP350	CC 1.11 / HP-UX 6.0 cc -O	 		 4752
HP350	g++ 1.18 -O -fomit-frame-pointer 
		    -finline-functions 	 		 4902
HP350	CC 1.11 / Microtec 3.0 [options unknown]	 5122
HP840   CC 1.11 / HP-UX cc -O				10940
HP850   CC 1.11 / HP-UX cc -O				20408

Conclusions: On THIS benchmark, choice of compilers doesn't
matter too much.  Choice of computer system makes a much bigger
difference.  The HP320 might be a little on the low side
for doing much C++ compiling -- at least until incremental 
compilation/link of C++ programs becomes a reality.  The HP350
isn't a bad match for C++ compilation work.  Access to a lightly
loaded HP850 system would make C++ development work a gas.