Re: Performance Regressions; Previously: Death by error checks.

hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker)
30 Dec 1995 01:04:08 -0500

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Grammars for future languages schinz@guano.alphanet.ch (1995-10-22)
Re: Death by error checks. hbaker@netcom.com (1995-12-19)
Performance Regressions; Previously: Death by error checks. cdg@nullstone.com (1995-12-28)
Re: Performance Regressions; Previously: Death by error checks. hbaker@netcom.com (1995-12-30)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 30 Dec 1995 01:04:08 -0500
Organization: nil organization
References: 95-10-103 95-12-113 95-12-140
Keywords: optimize

cdg@nullstone.com (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
find it!


This thread should now be renamed 'Death by SPECmarks'


--
www/ftp directory:
ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/hb/hbaker/home.html


--

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.