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)