🚀 go-pugleaf

ameline@vnet.ibm.com (Ian Ameline) writes:
<after he removed the redundancy concerning loops>
: 
:       Proc2(IntParIO)
:       OneToFifty *IntParIO;
:       {
:          if (Char1Glob == 'A')
:              *IntParIO += IntGlob+9;
:       }
: 
:    Hardly typical of real programs, don't you think? Dhrystone has lots
: of examples like this.
What makes you think that real programs have no redundancy?  
Don't you realise that you can go further in removing redundancy by using only
one procedure?
	Will anyone like to write program like that? Some people do,when they
are desperate and have no access to optimising compilers.
: 
:    Specmarks, on the other hand, are excellent benchmarks -- they give
No doubt they are but is it worth the cost? Can't we find a smaller version
which will try to emulate the way a human programmer writes programs, 
redundancy or not?
: a much more accurate indication of the quality of the processor/compiler
: pair.
You argument against dhrystons is the presense of redundancy which can be 
removed by optimising compilers.
	If specmark is really free from such redundancy, then its result 
should not depend on compilers. But it does. So it must have redundancy like
the dhrystone.
	Because redundancy is deliberately put to improve readability of a
program, I'll stick to dhryston 1.1, not dhryston 2.1, unless someone can
conclusively prove to me that the distribution of redundancy in dhryston 1.1,
is way out from the distribution of redundancy in real programs like gcc.

My rough study indicate that the redundancy distribution of dhry 1.1 is 
close to specmark because the ratio of speed up  due to compiler improvement,
is about the same as the speedup of dhry 1.1.

--
Othman bin Ahmad, School of EEE,
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 2263.
Internet Email: eoahmad@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg
Bitnet Email: eoahmad@ntuvax.bitnet