🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2577@intelca.UUCP> clif@intelca.UUCP (Clif Purkiser) writes:
> While, I agree that using a global optimizing compiler is not exactly
> kosher for the dhrystone benchmark it sometimes neccessary.  For 
> instance: the GreenHills C compiler is a globally optimizing compiler
> which generates good Dhrystone numbers for many architectures including
> the 80386 and 68020.	 Unfortunately, I can not find a compiler
> switch to turn off the global optimizer.  This leaves me with two choices:
> post the numbers with the cavet that this a global optimizing compiler 
> or use the results of a medicore compiler like CC.  I don't really
> think that global optimization is a problem as long as it is clearly
> labeled. 

I see this drawback as saying something not about the suitability of
optimizing compilers but about the suitability of the Dhrystone
program as a benchmark.  

If Dhrystone really is prone to sweeping global optimizations (with
corresponding improvements in running time), then doesn't it seem to
be pretty poor as a benchmark?  I heard a similar about a program
used to benchmark an early FORTRAN H compiler -- the global
optimizer reduced the entire program to just a print statement
(after having removed loop invariants, constant folding, and
removing the now empty loop).  The program took a long time to
compiler, but it ran VERY fast.

So, here is my vote for benchmark programs which are not prone to
huge improvements through global optimization.