SPEC CPU2006 announced

[John.L.Henning]

The new CPU benchmark from the Standard Performance Evaluation
Corporation is announced

http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/

Readers of comp.arch and comp.benchmarks may
recall that I posted a call for benchmark candidates
a few years ago. Thank you to those who responded.
There were many contributions of real applications,
as well as a variety of freely-available programs,
that were included (see "credits.html" at the URL
above).

The new benchmark is a challenge to compilers: mostly
new code, derived from real applications, and over
3 million lines of code. Nevertheless, a wide variety of
compilers have been used to produce initial results.

- John Henning
Performance Engineer, Sun Microsystems
and
Vice-Chair/Secretary, SPEC CPU Subcommittee

[Default User]

Greg Lindahl wrote:

In article <4l************@individual.net>,
Default User <de***********@yahoo.comwrote:

What I am becoming increasingly irritated by are the unfair
characterizations of comp.lang.c,

First you make comp.lang.c look bad by whining about a harmless
cross-post about something which a subset of people think is
incredibly important.

This is nonsense. Being protective of topicality is not "whining". In
particular I was talking about the individuals who falsely maintain
that all clc does is tell posters they are off-topic. It's a false
characterization and unfair to some of the very good and knowledgable
people there.

Then you get irritated because it's "unfair" that all the comp.lang.c
whiners about off-topic cross-posters have caused the rest of us to
think bad things about comp.lang.c. Hint: that's because that's all we
see from comp.lang.c denizens.

That fact that you choose not to actually check out the newsgroup is my
fault? I'll point out that same applies, what I see of comp.arch etc.
are largely in this thread. Yet, somehow, I'm able to understand that a
tiny slice of posts about a hot topic aren't representative of a
newsgroup. Are you saying that it's too tough for you?

Brian

[Greg Lindahl]

In article <4l************@individual.net>,
Default User <de***********@yahoo.comwrote:

>That fact that you choose not to actually check out the newsgroup is my
fault?

No. The irony that you're the same kind of whining idiot that created
the external impression of comp.lang.c is your fault.

I'll point out that same applies, what I see of comp.arch etc.
are largely in this thread.

It is extremely rare that comp.arch complains about cross-posted
threads. So it would be impossible for you to build up a long-term
impression about comp.arch this way.

FWIW, I'm also a comp.lang.fortran and comp.benchmarks reader.

Yet, somehow, I'm able to understand that a
tiny slice of posts about a hot topic aren't representative of a
newsgroup. Are you saying that it's too tough for you?

I was only talking about the external impression of comp.lang.c. That
you read too much into my statement is your problem, not mine.

-- greg

[Default User]

Greg Lindahl wrote:

In article <4l************@individual.net>,
Default User <de***********@yahoo.comwrote:

That fact that you choose not to actually check out the newsgroup
is my fault?

No. The irony that you're the same kind of whining idiot that created
the external impression of comp.lang.c is your fault.

Well, here's the problem. I raised an objection to unfair
characterization, and that makes me a "whining idiot"? But I suppose
your whining about the complaints from clc are perfectly legit?

You aren't a person with a reasonable grasp of the facts. Plain and
simple. As such, you aren't going to have anything worthwhile to say.
As such, the killfile seems like the reasonable solution.

So long.

[remainder disregarded]


Brian

[Andy Glew]

Jan Vorbrüggen <jv**********@not-mediasec.dewrites:

Yes, it sucks that you have to pay a nominal fee. This fee irritated
me while I was a student at university, it irritated me while I was
between jobs at AMD and Intel, getting in the way of "freelance"
computer architecture research. Heck, it irritates me at Intel,
because I cannot freely copy the benchmark source code around.

As I noted elsethread, that irritation - in that SPEC can not and will not
offer it for anonymous download - will never go away for legal reasons:
There are copyright issues, and SPEC particularly wants to make sure that
the run rules and the publication rules are obeyed. The latter alone make
it imperative that you sign a contract with them.

The FSF copyright restrictions do not apply to freely downloaded software?

This legal argument is bogus. More likely, SPEC doesn't want to be
troubled by a host of tech support questions.

Now, they could lower the fee, sure. They already have done so several
times in the past. I do think the $200 is about adequate to cover their
administrative costs for one licensee, and you sure wouldn't want SPEC
to go down because of a DDoS attack, would you? And frankly, anybody to
whom the $200 rate isn't applicable - the additional $600 is just in noise.
Heck, you could re-use runspec as your benchmark harness and save developing
one yourself - that's substantially more in savings.

All I know is, there was a time when I was a starving student,
developing some of the ideas that I contributed to P6, and hence to
the computers that most of you run on, where 200$US, inflation
adjusted, was a significant barrier. Heck, man, I was eating dogfood
when I wanted a taste of meat, buying moldy cucumbers and cutting out
the bad spots to afford "fresh" vegetables.

I will always be sympathetic to people who don't have much money.

Moreover, I am not so certain that I may not end up that way again.

[Bill Todd]

Andy Glew wrote:

....

Moreover, I am not so certain that I may not end up that way again.

So those rumors about Intel having the long knives out for real are true?

- bill

[Newsgroups deliberately not cropped to annoy those who have so recently
earned it.]

[Greg Lindahl]

In article <4l************@individual.net>,
Default User <de***********@yahoo.comwrote:

>Well, here's the problem. I raised an objection to unfair
characterization, and that makes me a "whining idiot"? But I suppose
your whining about the complaints from clc are perfectly legit?

Yes, and yes. Trust me, after N years of exposure to the moronic objections
of c.l.c to cross-posted questions, any reasonable person would go mad. Either
you're mad, or you're inured to the insanity of c.l.c.

>As such, the killfile seems like the reasonable solution.

Thank you - at least this will reduce the amount of whining.

-- greg

[Greg Lindahl]

In article <pe**************@PXPL8591.amr.corp.intel.com>,
Andy Glew <fi********@employer.domainwrote:

Heck, man, I was eating dogfood
when I wanted a taste of meat, buying moldy cucumbers and cutting out
the bad spots to afford "fresh" vegetables.

Er, that's when you're supposed to become a vegetarian. Really.

-- greg

[David Kanter]

I'll make my piece short and to the point:

The people complaining about John Henning's post are at best misguided
and somewhat overzealous denizens of usenet, and at worst, uniformed
idiots.

If you happen to think that SPEC is irrelevant to the future of C, C++
and Fortran, you really need to work at a compiler dev. group...

DK

[Chris Thomasson]

"David Kanter" <dk*****@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@b28g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...

I'll make my piece short and to the point:

The people complaining about John Henning's post are at best misguided
and somewhat overzealous denizens of usenet, and at worst, uniformed
idiots.

http://groups.google.com/group/comp....862ab8f9?hl=en
(read about halfway into the first paragraph...)

;)

[...]

[Chris Thomasson]

"Mark McIntyre" <ma**********@spamcop.netwrote in message
news:00********************************@4ax.com...

On 25 Aug 2006 19:03:44 -0700, in comp.lang.c , Andy Glew
<fi********@employer.domainwrote:

>>Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrites:
Let me continue the thread, so that Mark McIntyre will killfile me, too.

Your wish is granted.

Humm... Well, yes... After spending one second reading through your
postings; you did grant his wish... Indeed...

:)

Stupidity has its own reward.

Why would you killfile Andy or Eugene? IMO , they are very smart, and clever
individuals...

I can even make $ off the instruction sets that one probably created...

Do some research before you mouth off...

You sure do know how to let you ignorance shine brightly and clearly, for
every one to see...

WOW...

Okay... Now, please go ahead and killfile me! I dare you too...

:)

[Alexander Terekhov]

Andy Glew wrote:
[...]

The FSF copyright restrictions do not apply to freely downloaded software?

I assume that by "freely" you mean lack of manifestation of assent to
indicate acceptance of moronic GPL restrictions regarding downloaded
stuff.

>
This legal argument is bogus.

Not at all. 17 USC 109 (distribution) and 117 (private modifications
aka "adaptations"). See

http://www.copyright.gov/reports/stu...port-vol-1.pdf

"There is no dispute that section 109 applies to works in digital
form. Physical copies of works in a digital format, such as CDs or
DVDs, are subject to section 109 in the same way as physical
copies in analog form. Similarly, a lawfully made tangible copy
of a digitally downloaded work, such as a work downloaded to a
floppy disk, Zip™ disk, or CD-RW, is clearly subject to section
109."

More quotes from dmca/sec-104-report-vol-<2|3>.pdf:

Red Hat, Inc.:

Let me just clarify that I don't think anyone today intends to
impact our licensing practices. I haven't seen anything in the
comments, nor have I heard anything today that makes me think
someone does have that intention. What we're concerned about
are unintended consequences of any amendments to Section 109.
The primary difference between digital and nondigital products
with respect to Section 109 is that the former are frequently
licensed. ... product is also available for free downloaded
from the Internet without the printed documentation, without
the box, and without the installation service. Many open source
and free software products also embody the concept of copyleft.
... We are asking that amendments not be recommended that would
jeopardize the ability of open source and free software
licensor to require [blah blah]

Time Warner, Inc.:

We note that the initial downloading of a copy, from an
authorized source to a purchaser's computer, can result in
lawful ownership of a copy stored in a tangible medium.

Library Associations:

First, as conceded by Time Warner, digital transmissions can
result in the fixation of a tangible copy. By intentionally
engaging in digital transmissions with the awareness that a
tangible copy is made on the recipient's computer, copyright
owners are indeed transferring ownership of a copy of the work
to lawful recipients. Second, the position advanced by Time
Warner and the Copyright Industry Organizations is premised
on a formalistic reading of a particular codification of the
first sale doctrine. When technological change renders the
literal meaning of a statutory provision ambiguous, that
provision "must be construed in light of its basic purpose"
and "should not be so narrowly construed as to permit evasion
because of changing habits due to new inventions and
discoveries." Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S.
151, 156-158 (1975). The basic purpose of the first sale
doctrine is to facilitate the continued flow of property
throughout society.

See also (Pg 27):

http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/s...ions060403.pdf

regards,
alexander.

[Richard Tobin]

In article <11**********************@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>,
David Kanter <dk*****@gmail.comwrote:

>If you happen to think that SPEC is irrelevant to the future of C, C++
and Fortran, you really need to work at a compiler dev. group...

I think the view of the more extreme comp.lang.c complainers is that
that group is not about "things relevant to the future of C", nor is
it about compiler development. Rather it is about the C language itself,
as standardized. I don't agree with this narrow view.

-- Richard

[Ketil Malde]

kl****@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:

I don't think compiler authors should be allowed to even look at
benchmarks. Too much looking at benchmarks results in writing compilers
that compile benchmarks really well, at the expense of actual running code.

Well, you can try to click your heels together, and see if it helps.

The problem is that compiler writers need to test their compilers, and
if you don't have an official benchmark, you'll get unofficial ones -
at worst, you get a compiler that only can compile itself. :-)

So if you are interested in performance, you really should care about
benchmarks as well.

SPEC isn't perfect, but at least it is an attempt at a large and
comprehensive suite, and my impression is that they try hard to
represent a large set of problem domains and workloads.

-k
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants

[Jan Vorbrüggen]

>>As I noted elsethread, that irritation - in that SPEC can not and will not

>>offer it for anonymous download - will never go away for legal reasons:
There are copyright issues, and SPEC particularly wants to make sure that
the run rules and the publication rules are obeyed. The latter alone make
it imperative that you sign a contract with them.

The FSF copyright restrictions do not apply to freely downloaded software?

It is not only copyright as such. For instance, CFP 2000 contained the
facial images of about a hundred people. Other benchmark components perhaps
contained other data that need additional legal protection.

This legal argument is bogus. More likely, SPEC doesn't want to be
troubled by a host of tech support questions.

As I said above, the need to enforce the run rules require a contract with
the user. Everything else already follows from that.

All I know is, there was a time when I was a starving student,
developing some of the ideas that I contributed to P6, and hence to
the computers that most of you run on, where 200$US, inflation
adjusted, was a significant barrier. Heck, man, I was eating dogfood
when I wanted a taste of meat, buying moldy cucumbers and cutting out
the bad spots to afford "fresh" vegetables.

I think that says more about the state of US society than anything else.
What if you needed to buy - gasp! - a book to continue your studies?

Moreover, I am not so certain that I may not end up that way again.

_That_ certainly says a lot about the state of US society.

Jan

[Eugene Miya]

In article <MI******************************@comcast.com>,
Chris Thomasson <cr*****@comcast.netwrote:

>Why would you killfile Andy or Eugene? IMO , they are very smart, and clever
individuals...

Thank you, very flattering, but I think if I were a "very smart"
individual I would not be here, and I have would guys reading Usenet
(and other sources) for me, and I likely would be off doing other things.
Most of the really really smart guys I know have not just 1 but
sometimes 2 or more secretaries (the people who hold the real power).
I will satisified being merely smart enough, but sometimes that's not
enough.

--