|Grammars for future languages email@example.com (1995-10-22)|
|Re: Death by error checks. firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-12-19)|
|Performance Regressions; Previously: Death by error checks. email@example.com (1995-12-28)|
|Re: Performance Regressions; Previously: Death by error checks. firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-12-30)|
|From:||email@example.com (Henry Baker)|
|Date:||30 Dec 1995 01:04:08 -0500|
|References:||95-10-103 95-12-113 95-12-140|
firstname.lastname@example.org (Christopher Glaeser) wrote:
> Of course, SPEC performance is always monotonically non-decreasing,
> even if the release must be postponed. It is possible that a code
> fragment of a SPEC benchmark runs slower, but it must be offset by a
> code fragment that improves by equal or greater amount, since the
> emphasis is on the total sum gain.
Uh... I assume that this came with a winking smiley ;-), but I couldn't
This thread should now be renamed 'Death by SPECmarks'
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.