🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <C1Cnq5.1zt@news.cso.uiuc.edu> ercolessi@uimrl3.mrl.uiuc.edu (furio ercolessi) writes:
>In article <1993Jan23.003639.13681@craycos.com>, jrbd@craycos.com (James Davies) writes:
>|>In article <C19wHr.GF3@news.cso.uiuc.edu> ercolessi@uimrl3.mrl.uiuc.edu (furio ercolessi) writes:
>|>
>|>>This is probably too much to ask.  But I am wondering.  Maybe any one of
>|>>us (users) could spend some time in putting together some "typical" code,
>|>>containing a simplified version of the loops where our programs spend
>|>>most of the time.
>|>
>|>You've just described the Livermore Loops.
>
>After seeing this comment, I fired up xnetlib, downloaded the Livermore
>loops and looked at them.  I must admit I was not familiar with them.
>While there is certainly an interesting variety of codes in there (there are 24 
>different 'kernels'), at a first glance I was not able to locate something that 
>I feel represents the kind of codes I am dealing with.
>
>My applications involve classical molecular dynamics (i.e., interacting atoms 
>treated like classical masses and moved by time integration of F=ma).

My previous answer was a bit flip, I suppose, but basically there have been
lots of benchmarks floating around for decades now, and they tend to be
used primarily for marketting ("New XYZ Workstation Achieves 250 SPECmarks!!")
or as argument fodder ("Yeah, but they're using SPEC88, which was too easy
to cook by using a smart compiler!  They only get 127 on the SPEC93 suite,
but our new ABC9000 gets 172 SPEC93marks!").  For what it's worth, the
Perfect Club suite is a collection of application programs that was supposed
to avoid compiler cheating, and also help advance compiler technology by
encouraging sharing of techniques, but since the results don't boil down to a
single number that can be easily quoted by marketroids most everyone basically
ignores it.  Perfect includes one code that is a molecular-dynamics
simulation (MDG).