|
|
|
|
|
|
by e12e
2954 days ago
|
|
|
I don't really see a big problem with a little bit of gaming on the benchmark-code side; with a few implementations to compare, it might even give some hints for idiomatic efficient code. Gaming from the compiler/runtime side would be uglier - but I guess it is somewhat mitigated by real languages running the "general release" version. No harm in "fastest way to list first 1000 prime numbers" being "print static list of first 1000 prime numbers". Hand there's some value in having a standard benchmark harness that works easily across languages - as a helpful tool with "running your own benchmarks". Assuming the harness is any good, that is. |
|
|
I just got tired of the vitriol leveled at me with no basis. Things like I must have "sabotaged" other compilers. Probably the absolute worst one was when the journalist decided that Datalight Optimum C ran the benchmarks so fast, it must be a compiler bug and removed the benchmark results from his compiler roundup, calling DC a buggy compiler.
The reality was Datalight C was the first C compiler on DOS to do data flow analysis, and it deleted dead code. (Benchmarks of that era did nothing useful, and dfa detected that.) No cheating at all. A couple years later, everyone did dfa.