From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 10:22:31 -0600 From: "Eric Van Hensbergen" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] GCC/G++: some stress testing In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: Topicbox-Message-UUID: 6b024102-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 12:39 AM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: > > On 2008-Feb-29, at 22:02 , Eric Van Hensbergen wrote: > > > It will no doubt be useful to us folks doing work for the gov't. They > > DOE has lots of apps written for GCC or Fortran -- while there may be > > other methods of accommodating these applications, having them "just > > work" with GCC (particularly if the GCC fortran could be part of the > > port) would help us a lot. It could also serve as a baseline for > > performance/efficiency comparisons with other methodologies such as > > linuxemu, etc. > > But none of this code will "just work" on Plan 9 (especially the > Fortran code), so what's the point? > We are well aware of the peeling onion effect - it is just a step. Many of the HPC apps will "just work" with a minimum of fuss, others will require a considerable bit of fuss. To add to Ron's MPQC example, I'll just through out the HPCC benchmark suite: http://icl.cs.utk.edu/hpcc/ -eric