At 6:38 PM -0500 1/25/04, Gordon Henriksen wrote:
On Sunday, January 25, 2004, at 06:01 , Matt Fowles wrote:
Of late it seems that everybody has been throwing around their own
little homegrown benchmarks to support their points. But many
people frequently point out that these benchmarks are flawed on one
way or another.
I suggest that we add a benchmark/ subdirectory and create a
canonical suite of benchmarks that exercise things well (and
hopefully fully). Then we can all post relative times for runs on
this benchmark suite, and we will know exactly what is being tested
and how valid it is.
Well, there's already examples/benchmarks. If those programs are not
at all realistic, then more realistic benchmarks should be added.
Would be nice if there were a convenient way to run the lot of them
and collect the timing information, though.
Sounds like a good plan. I've thrown an item into the todo list :)
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
