Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!amdcad!tim
From: tim@amdcad.AMD.COM (Tim Olson)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: missing Dhrystone 2.1 (1 of 3 &
Message-ID: <22408@amdcad.AMD.COM>
Date: 20 Jul 88 04:39:23 GMT
References: <4232@cbmvax.UUCP> <76700035@p.cs.uiuc.edu> <1988Jul18.231331.19575@utzoo.uucp> <22406@amdcad.AMD.COM> <9amsvb52K11010cyawo@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>
Reply-To: tim@delirun.amd.com (Tim Olson)
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices
Lines: 17
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:

In article <9amsvb52K11010cyawo@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> littauer@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Tom Littauer) writes:
| No, 91K per each of 2 in a 5990-700 and 4 in a -1400... To be fair, that's
| not the released compiler (it was GNU cc). Does GNU do Dhrystone
| fakery? Anyway, the released compiler was 74K per each and it isn't
| optimized for Dhrystone. Our processor guys bitch that Dhrystone doesn't
| show our processors to be as fast as they really are, but that's an
| entirely different discussion.

Whoops!  My mistake.  I had edited Mr Richardson's posting and removed
(what I *thought* were superfluous!) columns to get it on an 80col
display -- one that I had removed explicitly stated that the values were
per each CPU in the system.  Thanks for clarifying this.  Gee, now we
have to aim even higher! ;-)

-- 
	-- Tim Olson
	Advanced Micro Devices
	(tim@delirun.amd.com)