Performance/ReleaseNotes - Revision history

ChrisCox at 23:26, 24 April 2009

2009-04-24T23:26:33Z

ChrisCox at 23:01, 28 January 2009

2009-01-28T23:01:52Z

ChrisCox at 23:00, 28 January 2009

2009-01-28T23:00:49Z

ChrisCox at 07:03, 10 December 2008

2008-12-10T07:03:05Z

ChrisCox at 20:17, 8 December 2008

2008-12-08T20:17:33Z

ChrisCox at 22:31, 7 May 2008

2008-05-07T22:31:55Z

ChrisCox at 06:13, 7 May 2008

2008-05-07T06:13:10Z

ChrisCox at 06:51, 6 May 2008

2008-05-06T06:51:05Z

ChrisCox at 21:28, 5 May 2008

2008-05-05T21:28:01Z

ChrisCox at 21:26, 5 May 2008

2008-05-05T21:26:33Z

New page

<h1>Release 1</h1>

<h2>Known Problems</h2>
<ul>
<li>Some Linux distributions have incomplete MACH/gcc headers. I need a simple way to determine whether they have the TR1 headers or not. Unfortunately, I don't have any of those distributions.
<i><b>Related code is now commented out</b></i>
</li>

</ul>
<br>

<h2>Files</h2>

<dl>

<dt>loop_unroll.cpp</dt>
<dd>
Test to see if compilers will correctly unroll loops to hide instruction latency. Some compilers have problems expanding the templates, and most compilers have problems correctly unrolling the loops for best performance.
</dd>
<dt>simple_types_loop_invariant.cpp</dt>
<dd>
A test to see if the compiler will move loop invariant calculations out of the loop. Most compilers have room for improvement.
</dd>
<dt>stepanov_abstraction.cpp</dt>
<dd>
An expanded version of the original test, answering "what happens to performance when I wrap a value in curly braces?" Almost all compilers do well on the original summation tests, but they don't do nearly so well on simple sort routines using the same abstractions.
</dd>

<dt>machine.cpp</dt>
<dd>
A utility program to print out information about the compiler version, OS, and machine environment - because it is nice to know which build of your compiler generated a particular report, and which of the 30 machines in your lab that it was run on.
</dd>

<dt>benchmark_algorithms.h</dt>
<dd>
Templated algorithms shared by several test files.
</dd>
<dt>benchmark_results.h</dt>
<dd>
Shared result reporting and formatting functions for all tests, must work in C and C++.
</dd>
<dt>benchmark_shared_tests.h</dt>
<dd>
Templated test functions shared by several test files.
</dd>
<dt>benchmark_stdint.h</dt>
<dd>
Standard type definitions, required because some compilers still have not picked up C99 standard headers.
</dd>
<dt>benchmark_timer.h</dt>
<dd>
Shared timer function for all tests, must work in C and C++.
</dd>

<dt>makefile</dt>
<dd>
Make information for Unix based OSes. "make report" to build all binaries and start a benchmark run.
</dd>
<dt>makefile.nt</dt>
<dd>
Make information for Windows. "nmake -f makefile.nt report" (in a shell/command prompt with the appropriate compiler variables set) to build all binaries and start a benchmark run.
</dd>

<dt>LICENSE_1_0_0.txt</dt>
<dd>
License details, a copy can also be found at http://stlab.adobe.com/licenses.html .
</dd>
<dt>README.txt</dt>
<dd>
Basic information about the benchmark suite: goals, rules, and instructions on how to build and run.
</dd>

</dl>

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 <li>Line out of place in functionobjects.cpp near line 334.<br>
 <i><b>Moved the line to the correct location.</b></i>
 </li>

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 <ul>
-<li>Line out of place in functionobjects.cpp near line 334.  -- fixed.
+<li>Line out of place in functionobjects.cpp near line 334.<br>
 </li>

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 <ul>
-<li>None yet.
+<li>Line out of place in functionobjects.cpp near line 334.  -- fixed.
 </li>

@@ Line 37: / Line 37: @@
 <h1>Release 1 - May 5, 2008</h1>
-<h2>Known Problems</h2>
+<h2>Fixed Problems</h2>
 <ul>
 <li>Some Linux distributions have incomplete MACH/gcc headers.  I need a simple way to determine whether they have the TR1 headers or not.  Unfortunately, I don't have any of those distributions.

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 <ul>
 <li>Some Linux distributions have incomplete MACH/gcc headers.  I need a simple way to determine whether they have the TR1 headers or not.  Unfortunately, I don't have any of those distributions.
-<i><b>Related code is now commented out</b></i>
+<i><b>Related code is now commented out.</b></i>
 </li>
 <li>Some 64 bit Linux distributions don't like benchmark_stdint.hpp.
 <i><b>Fix is posted, but really needs to be tested on more OSes.</b></i>
 </li>

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:17, 8 December 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	<h1>Release 2 - December 8, 2008</h1>
		+
		+	<h2>Known Problems</h2>
		+	<ul>
		+
		+	<li>None yet.
		+	</li>
		+
		+	</ul>
		+	<br>
		+
		+	<h2>Files</h2>
		+
		+	<dl>
		+
		+	<dt>functionobjects.cpp</dt>
		+	<dd>
		+	This is a demonstration of the performance of of function pointers, functors, and native comparison operators. Some compilers have difficulty instantiating simple functors.
		+	</dd>
		+	<dt>simple_types_constant_folding.cpp</dt>
		+	<dd>
		+	A test to see if the compiler will correctly fold constants and simple constant math for simple types. Results may be surprising.
		+	</dd>
		+	<dt>stepanov_vector.cpp</dt>
		+	<dd>
		+	Similar to the abstraction penalty benchmark, this file tests what happens when we move from pointers to vector iterators and when we use reverse iterators. This tests the compiler supplied STL implementation in addition to the compiler itself. Some good compilers are crippled by bad STL implementations.
		+	</dd>
		+
		+
		+
		+
		+
		+	</dl>
		+
		+
		+
	<h1>Release 1 - May 5, 2008</h1>		<h1>Release 1 - May 5, 2008</h1>

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:28, 5 May 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	<h1>Release 1</h1>	+	<h1>Release 1 - May 5, 2008</h1>

	<h2>Known Problems</h2>		<h2>Known Problems</h2>