Author: Daniel Clausen
Date: 13:10:13 06/24/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 24, 2003 at 16:01:34, Dann Corbit wrote:
[snip]
>If they chose GCC, it is probably because GCC produces a better binary than
>anything else at their disposal. And if that is the case, then we are certainly
>seeing the true measure of performance. After all, anyone else who creates
>software tools will have to use that compiler or an inferior one also.
OTOH, building a compiler around SPEC can also be misleading. :)
I guess both sides shouldn't take these benchmarks too serious anyway.. I
definitely don't like the way Apple produced the benchmarks, but I'm sure
they're not the only company who 'tweak' the results a little to their liking..
there are many ways to do this. SPEC(Int|FP) (and others benchmarks) surely show
the general direction, but since the companies involved have so much
self-interest in the results it's hardly very scientific anyway.
bool heavyCalculation(lots_of_input_data)
{
#ifdef ITS_LIKELY_I_AM_USED_AS_A_BENCHMARK
return true; // Change to 'false' on Tuesdays
#else
return reallyDoTheHeavyCalculation(lots_of_input_data);
#endif
}
and compile it with 'gcc -fomit-instructions' :p
Sargon
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.