Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!cica!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!MATHOM.GANDALF.CS.CMU.EDU!lindsay
From: lindsay@MATHOM.GANDALF.CS.CMU.EDU (Donald Lindsay)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: SPARC vs MC68040
Summary: compiler tuning
Message-ID: <7938@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: 12 Feb 90 00:57:54 GMT
References: <8859@portia.Stanford.EDU> <5190@convex.convex.com> <1850@cbnewsi.ATT.COM> <2938@oakhill.UUCP> <3085@rtmvax.UUCP> <35825@mips.mips.COM>
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 18

In article <35825@mips.mips.COM> mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) writes:
>
>NOTE: regarding Dhrystone:
>	a) A bunch of Motorola people have been working hard along with the
>	rest of the SPECers to get better benchmarks, and have started getting
>	good compiler gains by analyzing real programs.
>	Talking about Dhrystone is a step backwards...

Tuning compilers for it is also a step backwards. 

In a previous life, I worked on hightly optimizing compilers.
Adjusting our product to make one benchmark run better, would make
others run worse.  I am convinced that compilers tuned for Dhrystone,
are in fact badly tuned. We will be doing ourselves a favor by
demanding good Specmarks instead of good Dhrystones.

-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay 	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science