Talk:Dhrystone

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests :
- Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet
Cleanup :
- Computer science articles needing attention
- Computer science articles needing expert attention
Copyedit :
- Computing
Expand :
- Computer science
Infobox :
- Computer science articles without infoboxes
Maintain :
- Timeline of computing 2020–present
Photo :
- Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists)
- Computing articles needing images
Stubs :
- Computer science stubs
Unreferenced :
- WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs
Project-related :
- Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with {{WikiProject Computer science}}

MDIPS[edit]

If MDIPS are used with the Dhrystone method, then why isn't it mentioned in this article? Couldn't we add a secion here and then we could "merge" the two articles. The MDIPS page is an almost empty stub. Andrew Powell 20:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The factor for converting Dhrystone to DMIPS in the page is 1757, but on the reference is 1857. Which is the correct one ?

Outdated[edit]

The article seems to be a little dated in its praise of Dhrystone for use as a benchmark. I added criticisms of the algorithm and reference to a statement made by the author himself that the benchmark was outmoded and should not be used. Starseeker shkm 03:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably true, but right now I am interested in benchmarks for older computers, running older compilers, where it might not be so bad. But the Instructions_per_second#MIPS page seems to have Dhrystone results for computers too old, and too new. Was it really run on all those computers? Gah4 (talk) 09:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfair criticism and comparison to Coremark[edit]

The criticism and comparisom section take as a given that benchmarks are supposed to measure the performance of the hardware, as independent as possible from the compiler. The sensitivity tocompiler optimizations is presented purely as a weakness in the article. But when doing benchmarking to compare combined hardware / software systems or when comparing compilers it is a strength. The comparison pretends that all that matters is that both Dhrystone and Coremark can be obtained free of charge. But Dhrystone is free software, while Coremark is non-free software that may not be redistributed and can only be obtained by agreeing to EEMBC's terms. They forbid redistribution. The terms even require that you delete your own copies of old Coremark versions whenever EEMBC releases a new version. See Coremark license. 93.216.193.194 (talk) 08:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed?[edit]

Therefore, an optimizer can replace a string copy with a sequence of word moves without any loops, which will be much faster. This optimization consequently overstates system performance, sometimes by more than 30%[citation needed]. Which is the citation needed for? That optimizers do that, or that the performance change is 30%? Gah4 (talk) 09:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]