Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!husc6!rutgers!gatech!amdcad!news
From: news@amdcad.AMD.COM (Network News)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Dhrystone
Message-ID: <22652@amdcad.AMD.COM>
Date: 18 Aug 88 16:03:17 GMT
References: <8808180050.AA05343@cory.Berkeley.EDU>
Reply-To: tim@delirun.amd.com (Tim Olson)
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., Sunnyvale CA
Lines: 20
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:

In article <8808180050.AA05343@cory.Berkeley.EDU> dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) writes:
| 	Does that answer you question?  I am not tarring either Lattice or 
| Manx, but pointing out two things people do not seem to understand about
| benchmarks.  (1) Never fine tune a benchmark, and (2) Benchmarks are 
| incredibly difficult to write if written properly.
| 
| 	Going a little deeper:  A properly written benchmark should be 
| difficult to fine-tune (anybody else catch that inference?)
| 
| 						-Matt

No.  A properly written benchmark should reflect the intended use of the
system.  If my system is constantly being used to solve systems of
linear equations, then LINPACK is a great benchmark, and if a compiler
can automatically unroll the inner-loop of saxpy or whatever, so much
the better.

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