From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net>
Message-ID: <3AFA9F36.988C94FF@null.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <20010508213335.E2ACC19A28@mail.cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Performance
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 15:15:06 +0000
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 9db0d320-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

Russ Cox wrote:
> On the other hand, lmbench might be more suited to
> Plan 9 than to Unix.  At least on Plan 9 you can
> be more certain that you're measuring something real,
> as opposed to code that gcc has optimized into the
> empty instruction sequence.

That's a standard problem whenever benchmarks become a
de facto standard that affects acquisition decisions.
A compiler *might* detect that a benchmark source is
being compiled and turn it into the equivalent of
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void) { printf("0.0001 usec.\n); return 0; }