Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!ucsd!ucbvax!CORY.BERKELEY.EDU!dillon
From: dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Dhrystone
Message-ID: <8808150554.AA14630@cory.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 15 Aug 88 05:54:28 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Lines: 19


>In article <583@faui44.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> mlelstv@faui44.UUCP (Michael van Elst (kdebugger)) writes:
>>I would like to tell you that this Dhrystone results
>>depend much on the abilty of Lattice to use inline code
>>for string functions.
>
>Manx 3.6 offers inline string function handling.
>
>-scott

	This is why such benchmarks are ludicrous, when people fine-tune
the benchmark and/or compiler to make the benchmark look better.  I won't
even talk about what Intel did.  Well, maybe I will.  They took IBM's
MIPS benchmark and gave themselves a MIPS rating timing NOP's. ... IBM
defines MIPS as testing *all* the instructions of a processor with the
estimated percent-usage for those instructions.  Suddenly, everybody's 
brother's processor was doing better than an IBM mainframe!

					-Matt