From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-59589-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 18697 invoked by alias); 3 Sep 2002 20:36:17 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 18690 invoked from network); 3 Sep 2002 20:36:16 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 3 Sep 2002 20:36:16 -0000
Received: by nile.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 338)
	id 7FE59F2941; Tue,  3 Sep 2002 16:36:16 -0400 (EDT)
To: dewar@gnat.com, kevina@gnu.org
Subject: Re: [GCC 3.x] Performance testing for QA
Cc: Peter.Sasi@t-systems.co.hu, aj@suse.de, gcc@gcc.gnu.org,
	tjw@omnigroup.com
Message-Id: <20020903203616.7FE59F2941@nile.gnat.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 13:36:00 -0000
From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)
X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00099.txt.bz2

<<However, encoding/decoding (especially encoding) is one area were speed
really matters.  Encoding in real time (with out sacrificing quality) is
still not passable with many codecs except on the newest machines.
Unfortunately, because video work is so computationally extensive significant
portions of the code are often rewritten is assembly to take advantage of
MMX etc instructions that many compilers do not produce normally.  This
means that that pure C versions may not exist or if they do they are not
coded optimally.
>>

This is all true.

But what does it have to do with being a good benchmark?

Nothing as far as I can see.