Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!ames!oliveb!pyramid!prls!mips!sah
From: sah@mips.COM (Steve Hanson)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: benchmarks
Keywords: correctness
Message-ID: <2186@gumby.mips.COM>
Date: 15 May 88 00:50:09 GMT
References: <30872@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> <3460014@hpsrla.HP.COM> <2175@winchester.mips.COM> <31755@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> <8734@ames.arc.nasa.gov>
Reply-To: sah@mips.COM (Steve Hanson)
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 23

In article <8734@ames.arc.nasa.gov> eugene@pioneer.UUCP (Eugene N. Miya) writes:
>In summary from my paper:
>
>What makes good benchmarks:
>
>You require reproducibility, comprehendability, and you would like
>simplicity.
[other stuff]
>
>--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
>  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
>  "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
>  {uunet,hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene
>  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."


	Good benchmarks also validate their results with expected
results. We if don't know whether a benchmark ran successfully, how
can be draw conclusions? 

-- 
UUCP: {ames,decwrl,prls,pyramid}!mips!sah
USPS: MIPS Computer Systems, 930 Arques Ave, Sunnyvale CA, 94086