RTOS/rtems
1
0
Fork 0
forked from Imagelibrary/rtems
Code Pull Requests Activity

benchmarks/dhrystone: Import

Browse Source 
Import dhrystone sources from:

http://www.netlib.org/benchmark/dhry-c

Update #2958.
This commit is contained in:
Sebastian Huber
2017-03-28 13:13:07 +02:00
parent 0027682546
commit 317c1f41ea
6 changed files with 1596 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

361
testsuites/benchmarks/dhrystone/RATIONALE Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,361 @@
Dhrystone Benchmark: Rationale for Version 2 and Measurement Rules
[published in SIGPLAN Notices 23,8 (Aug. 1988), 49-62]
Reinhold P. Weicker
Siemens AG, E STE 35
[now: Siemens AG, AUT E 51]
Postfach 3220
D-8520 Erlangen
Germany (West)
1. Why a Version 2 of Dhrystone?
The Dhrystone benchmark program [1] has become a popular benchmark for
CPU/compiler performance measurement, in particular in the area of
minicomputers, workstations, PC's and microprocesors. It apparently satisfies
a need for an easy-to-use integer benchmark; it gives a first performance
indication which is more meaningful than MIPS numbers which, in their literal
meaning (million instructions per second), cannot be used across different
instruction sets (e.g. RISC vs. CISC). With the increasing use of the
benchmark, it seems necessary to reconsider the benchmark and to check whether
it can still fulfill this function. Version 2 of Dhrystone is the result of
such a re-evaluation, it has been made for two reasons:
o Dhrystone has been published in Ada [1], and Versions in Ada, Pascal and C
have been distributed by Reinhold Weicker via floppy disk. However, the
version that was used most often for benchmarking has been the version made
by Rick Richardson by another translation from the Ada version into the C
programming language, this has been the version distributed via the UNIX
network Usenet [2].
There is an obvious need for a common C version of Dhrystone, since C is at
present the most popular system programming language for the class of
systems (microcomputers, minicomputers, workstations) where Dhrystone is
used most. There should be, as far as possible, only one C version of
Dhrystone such that results can be compared without restrictions. In the
past, the C versions distributed by Rick Richardson (Version 1.1) and by
Reinhold Weicker had small (though not significant) differences.
Together with the new C version, the Ada and Pascal versions have been
updated as well.
o As far as it is possible without changes to the Dhrystone statistics,
optimizing compilers should be prevented from removing significant
statements. It has turned out in the past that optimizing compilers
suppressed code generation for too many statements (by "dead code removal"
or "dead variable elimination"). This has lead to the danger that
benchmarking results obtained by a naive application of Dhrystone - without
inspection of the code that was generated - could become meaningless.
The overall policiy for version 2 has been that the distribution of
statements, operand types and operand locality described in [1] should remain
unchanged as much as possible. (Very few changes were necessary; their impact
should be negligible.) Also, the order of statements should remain unchanged.
Although I am aware of some critical remarks on the benchmark - I agree with
several of them - and know some suggestions for improvement, I didn't want to
change the benchmark into something different from what has become known as
"Dhrystone"; the confusion generated by such a change would probably outweight
the benefits. If I were to write a new benchmark program, I wouldn't give it
the name "Dhrystone" since this denotes the program published in [1].
However, I do recognize the need for a larger number of representative
programs that can be used as benchmarks; users should always be encouraged to
use more than just one benchmark.
The new versions (version 2.1 for C, Pascal and Ada) will be distributed as
widely as possible. (Version 2.1 differs from version 2.0 distributed via the
UNIX Network Usenet in March 1988 only in a few corrections for minor
deficiencies found by users of version 2.0.) Readers who want to use the
benchmark for their own measurements can obtain a copy in machine-readable
form on floppy disk (MS-DOS or XENIX format) from the author.
2. Overall Characteristics of Version 2
In general, version 2 follows - in the parts that are significant for
performance measurement, i.e. within the measurement loop - the published
(Ada) version and the C versions previously distributed. Where the versions
distributed by Rick Richardson [2] and Reinhold Weicker have been different,
it follows the version distributed by Reinhold Weicker. (However, the
differences have been so small that their impact on execution time in all
likelihood has been negligible.) The initialization and UNIX instrumentation
part - which had been omitted in [1] - follows mostly the ideas of Rick
Richardson [2]. However, any changes in the initialization part and in the
printing of the result have no impact on performance measurement since they
are outside the measaurement loop. As a concession to older compilers, names
have been made unique within the first 8 characters for the C version.
The original publication of Dhrystone did not contain any statements for time
measurement since they are necessarily system-dependent. However, it turned
out that it is not enough just to inclose the main procedure of Dhrystone in a
loop and to measure the execution time. If the variables that are computed
are not used somehow, there is the danger that the compiler considers them as
"dead variables" and suppresses code generation for a part of the statements.
Therefore in version 2 all variables of "main" are printed at the end of the
program. This also permits some plausibility control for correct execution of
the benchmark.
At several places in the benchmark, code has been added, but only in branches
that are not executed. The intention is that optimizing compilers should be
prevented from moving code out of the measurement loop, or from removing code
altogether. Statements that are executed have been changed in very few places
only. In these cases, only the role of some operands has been changed, and it
was made sure that the numbers defining the "Dhrystone distribution"
(distribution of statements, operand types and locality) still hold as much as
possible. Except for sophisticated optimizing compilers, execution times for
version 2.1 should be the same as for previous versions.
Because of the self-imposed limitation that the order and distribution of the
executed statements should not be changed, there are still cases where
optimizing compilers may not generate code for some statements. To a certain
degree, this is unavoidable for small synthetic benchmarks. Users of the
benchmark are advised to check code listings whether code is generated for all
statements of Dhrystone.
Contrary to the suggestion in the published paper and its realization in the
versions previously distributed, no attempt has been made to subtract the time
for the measurement loop overhead. (This calculation has proven difficult to
implement in a correct way, and its omission makes the program simpler.)
However, since the loop check is now part of the benchmark, this does have an
impact - though a very minor one - on the distribution statistics which have
been updated for this version.
3. Discussion of Individual Changes
In this section, all changes are described that affect the measurement loop
and that are not just renamings of variables. All remarks refer to the C
version; the other language versions have been updated similarly.
In addition to adding the measurement loop and the printout statements,
changes have been made at the following places:
o In procedure "main", three statements have been added in the non-executed
"then" part of the statement
if (Enum_Loc == Func_1 (Ch_Index, 'C'))
they are
strcpy (Str_2_Loc, "DHRYSTONE PROGRAM, 3'RD STRING");
Int_2_Loc = Run_Index;
Int_Glob = Run_Index;
The string assignment prevents movement of the preceding assignment to
Str_2_Loc (5'th statement of "main") out of the measurement loop (This
probably will not happen for the C version, but it did happen with another
language and compiler.) The assignment to Int_2_Loc prevents value
propagation for Int_2_Loc, and the assignment to Int_Glob makes the value of
Int_Glob possibly dependent from the value of Run_Index.
o In the three arithmetic computations at the end of the measurement loop in
"main ", the role of some variables has been exchanged, to prevent the
division from just cancelling out the multiplication as it was in [1]. A
very smart compiler might have recognized this and suppressed code
generation for the division.
o For Proc_2, no code has been changed, but the values of the actual parameter
have changed due to changes in "main".
o In Proc_4, the second assignment has been changed from
Bool_Loc = Bool_Loc | Bool_Glob;
to
Bool_Glob = Bool_Loc | Bool_Glob;
It now assigns a value to a global variable instead of a local variable
(Bool_Loc); Bool_Loc would be a "dead variable" which is not used
afterwards.
o In Func_1, the statement
Ch_1_Glob = Ch_1_Loc;
was added in the non-executed "else" part of the "if" statement, to prevent
the suppression of code generation for the assignment to Ch_1_Loc.
o In Func_2, the second character comparison statement has been changed to
if (Ch_Loc == 'R')
('R' instead of 'X') because a comparison with 'X' is implied in the
preceding "if" statement.
Also in Func_2, the statement
Int_Glob = Int_Loc;
has been added in the non-executed part of the last "if" statement, in order
to prevent Int_Loc from becoming a dead variable.
o In Func_3, a non-executed "else" part has been added to the "if" statement.
While the program would not be incorrect without this "else" part, it is
considered bad programming practice if a function can be left without a
return value.
To compensate for this change, the (non-executed) "else" part in the "if"
statement of Proc_3 was removed.
The distribution statistics have been changed only by the addition of the
measurement loop iteration (1 additional statement, 4 additional local integer
operands) and by the change in Proc_4 (one operand changed from local to
global). The distribution statistics in the comment headers have been updated
accordingly.
4. String Operations
The string operations (string assignment and string comparison) have not been
changed, to keep the program consistent with the original version.
There has been some concern that the string operations are over-represented in
the program, and that execution time is dominated by these operations. This
was true in particular when optimizing compilers removed too much code in the
main part of the program, this should have been mitigated in version 2.
It should be noted that this is a language-dependent issue: Dhrystone was
first published in Ada, and with Ada or Pascal semantics, the time spent in
the string operations is, at least in all implementations known to me,
considerably smaller. In Ada and Pascal, assignment and comparison of strings
are operators defined in the language, and the upper bounds of the strings
occuring in Dhrystone are part of the type information known at compilation
time. The compilers can therefore generate efficient inline code. In C,
string assignemt and comparisons are not part of the language, so the string
operations must be expressed in terms of the C library functions "strcpy" and
"strcmp". (ANSI C allows an implementation to use inline code for these
functions.) In addition to the overhead caused by additional function calls,
these functions are defined for null-terminated strings where the length of
the strings is not known at compilation time; the function has to check every
byte for the termination condition (the null byte).
Obviously, a C library which includes efficiently coded "strcpy" and "strcmp"
functions helps to obtain good Dhrystone results. However, I don't think that
this is unfair since string functions do occur quite frequently in real
programs (editors, command interpreters, etc.). If the strings functions are
implemented efficiently, this helps real programs as well as benchmark
programs.
I admit that the string comparison in Dhrystone terminates later (after
scanning 20 characters) than most string comparisons in real programs. For
consistency with the original benchmark, I didn't change the program despite
this weakness.
5. Intended Use of Dhrystone
When Dhrystone is used, the following "ground rules" apply:
o Separate compilation (Ada and C versions)
As mentioned in [1], Dhrystone was written to reflect actual programming
practice in systems programming. The division into several compilation
units (5 in the Ada version, 2 in the C version) is intended, as is the
distribution of inter-module and intra-module subprogram calls. Although on
many systems there will be no difference in execution time to a Dhrystone
version where all compilation units are merged into one file, the rule is
that separate compilation should be used. The intention is that real
programming practice, where programs consist of several independently
compiled units, should be reflected. This also has implies that the
compiler, while compiling one unit, has no information about the use of
variables, register allocation etc. occuring in other compilation units.
Although in real life compilation units will probably be larger, the
intention is that these effects of separate compilation are modeled in
Dhrystone.
A few language systems have post-linkage optimization available (e.g., final
register allocation is performed after linkage). This is a borderline case:
Post-linkage optimization involves additional program preparation time
(although not as much as compilation in one unit) which may prevent its
general use in practical programming. I think that since it defeats the
intentions given above, it should not be used for Dhrystone.
Unfortunately, ISO/ANSI Pascal does not contain language features for
separate compilation. Although most commercial Pascal compilers provide
separate compilation in some way, we cannot use it for Dhrystone since such
a version would not be portable. Therefore, no attempt has been made to
provide a Pascal version with several compilation units.
o No procedure merging
Although Dhrystone contains some very short procedures where execution would
benefit from procedure merging (inlining, macro expansion of procedures),
procedure merging is not to be used. The reason is that the percentage of
procedure and function calls is part of the "Dhrystone distribution" of
statements contained in [1]. This restriction does not hold for the string
functions of the C version since ANSI C allows an implementation to use
inline code for these functions.
o Other optimizations are allowed, but they should be indicated
It is often hard to draw an exact line between "normal code generation" and
"optimization" in compilers: Some compilers perform operations by default
that are invoked in other compilers only when optimization is explicitly
requested. Also, we cannot avoid that in benchmarking people try to achieve
results that look as good as possible. Therefore, optimizations performed
by compilers - other than those listed above - are not forbidden when
Dhrystone execution times are measured. Dhrystone is not intended to be
non-optimizable but is intended to be similarly optimizable as normal
programs. For example, there are several places in Dhrystone where
performance benefits from optimizations like common subexpression
elimination, value propagation etc., but normal programs usually also
benefit from these optimizations. Therefore, no effort was made to
artificially prevent such optimizations. However, measurement reports
should indicate which compiler optimization levels have been used, and
reporting results with different levels of compiler optimization for the
same hardware is encouraged.
o Default results are those without "register" declarations (C version)
When Dhrystone results are quoted without additional qualification, they
should be understood as results obtained without use of the "register"
attribute. Good compilers should be able to make good use of registers even
without explicit register declarations ([3], p. 193).
Of course, for experimental purposes, post-linkage optimization, procedure
merging and/or compilation in one unit can be done to determine their effects.
However, Dhrystone numbers obtained under these conditions should be
explicitly marked as such; "normal" Dhrystone results should be understood as
results obtained following the ground rules listed above.
In any case, for serious performance evaluation, users are advised to ask for
code listings and to check them carefully. In this way, when results for
different systems are compared, the reader can get a feeling how much
performance difference is due to compiler optimization and how much is due to
hardware speed.
6. Acknowledgements
The C version 2.1 of Dhrystone has been developed in cooperation with Rick
Richardson (Tinton Falls, NJ), it incorporates many ideas from the "Version
1.1" distributed previously by him over the UNIX network Usenet. Through his
activity with Usenet, Rick Richardson has made a very valuable contribution to
the dissemination of the benchmark. I also thank Chaim Benedelac (National
Semiconductor), David Ditzel (SUN), Earl Killian and John Mashey (MIPS), Alan
Smith and Rafael Saavedra-Barrera (UC at Berkeley) for their help with
comments on earlier versions of the benchmark.
7. Bibliography
[1]
Reinhold P. Weicker: Dhrystone: A Synthetic Systems Programming Benchmark.
Communications of the ACM 27, 10 (Oct. 1984), 1013-1030
[2]
Rick Richardson: Dhrystone 1.1 Benchmark Summary (and Program Text)
Informal Distribution via "Usenet", Last Version Known to me: Sept. 21,
1987
[3]
Brian W. Kernighan and Dennis M. Ritchie: The C Programming Language.
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (NJ) 1978

78
testsuites/benchmarks/dhrystone/README_C Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
This "shar" file contains the documentation for the
electronic mail distribution of the Dhrystone benchmark (C version 2.1);
a companion "shar" file contains the source code.
(Because of mail length restrictions for some mailers, I have
split the distribution in two parts.)
For versions in other languages, see the other "shar" files.
Files containing the C version (*.h: Header File, *.c: C Modules)
dhry.h
dhry_1.c
dhry_2.c
The file RATIONALE contains the article
"Dhrystone Benchmark: Rationale for Version 2 and Measurement Rules"
which has been published, together with the C source code (Version 2.0),
in SIGPLAN Notices vol. 23, no. 8 (Aug. 1988), pp. 49-62.
This article explains all changes that have been made for Version 2,
compared with the version of the original publication
in Communications of the ACM vol. 27, no. 10 (Oct. 1984), pp. 1013-1030.
It also contains "ground rules" for benchmarking with Dhrystone
which should be followed by everyone who uses the program and publishes
Dhrystone results.
Compared with the Version 2.0 published in SIGPLAN Notices, Version 2.1
contains a few corrections that have been made after Version 2.0 was
distriobuted over the UNIX network Usenet. These small differences between
Version 2.0 and 2.1 should not affect execution time measurements.
For those who want to compare the exact contents of both versions,
the file "dhry_c.dif" contains the differences between the two versions,
as generated by a file comparison of the corresponding files with the
UNIX utility "diff".
The file VARIATIONS contains the article
"Understanding Variations in Dhrystone Performance"
which has been published in Microprocessor Report, May 1989
(Editor: M. Slater), pp. 16-17. It describes the points that users
should know if C Dhrystone results are compared.
Recipients of this shar file who perform measurements are asked
to send measurement results to the author and/or to Rick Richardson.
Rick Richardson publishes regularly Dhrystone results on the UNIX network
Usenet. For submissions of results to him (preferably by electronic mail,
see address in the program header), he has provided a form which is contained
in the file "submit.frm".
The following files are contained in other "shar" files:
Files containing the Ada version (*.s: Specifications, *.b: Bodies):
d_global.s
d_main.b
d_pack_1.b
d_pack_1.s
d_pack_2.b
d_pack_2.s
File containing the Pascal version:
dhry.p
February 22, 1990
Reinhold P. Weicker
Siemens AG, AUT E 51
Postfach 3220
D-8520 Erlangen
Germany (West)
Phone: [xxx-49]-9131-7-20330 (8-17 Central European Time)
UUCP: ..!mcsun!unido!estevax!weicker

157
testsuites/benchmarks/dhrystone/VARIATIONS Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,157 @@
Understanding Variations in Dhrystone Performance
By Reinhold P. Weicker, Siemens AG, AUT E 51, Erlangen
April 1989
This article has appeared in:
Microprocessor Report, May 1989 (Editor: M. Slater), pp. 16-17
Microprocessor manufacturers tend to credit all the performance measured by
benchmarks to the speed of their processors, they often don't even mention the
programming language and compiler used. In their detailed documents, usually
called "performance brief" or "performance report," they usually do give more
details. However, these details are often lost in the press releases and other
marketing statements. For serious performance evaluation, it is necessary to
study the code generated by the various compilers.
Dhrystone was originally published in Ada (Communications of the ACM, Oct.
1984). However, since good Ada compilers were rare at this time and, together
with UNIX, C became more and more popular, the C version of Dhrystone is the
one now mainly used in industry. There are "official" versions 2.1 for Ada,
Pascal, and C, which are as close together as the languages' semantic
differences permit.
Dhrystone contains two statements where the programming language and its
translation play a major part in the execution time measured by the benchmark:
o String assignment (in procedure Proc_0 / main)
o String comparison (in function Func_2)
In Ada and Pascal, strings are arrays of characters where the length of the
string is part of the type information known at compile time. In C, strings
are also arrays of characters, but there are no operators defined in the
language for assignment and comparison of strings. Instead, functions
"strcpy" and "strcmp" are used. These functions are defined for strings of
arbitrary length, and make use of the fact that strings in C have to end with
a terminating null byte. For general-purpose calls to these functions, the
implementor can assume nothing about the length and the alignment of the
strings involved.
The C version of Dhrystone spends a relatively large amount of time in these
two functions. Some time ago, I made measurements on a VAX 11/785 with the
Berkeley UNIX (4.2) compilers (often-used compilers, but certainly not the
most advanced). In the C version, 23% of the time was spent in the string
functions; in the Pascal version, only 10%. On good RISC machines (where less
time is spent in the procedure calling sequence than on a VAX) and with better
optimizing compilers, the percentage is higher; MIPS has reported 34% for an
R3000. Because of this effect, Pascal and Ada Dhrystone results are usually
better than C results (except when the optimization quality of the C compiler
is considerably better than that of the other compilers).
Several people have noted that the string operations are over-represented in
Dhrystone, mainly because the strings occurring in Dhrystone are longer than
average strings. I admit that this is true, and have said so in my SIGPLAN
Notices paper (Aug. 1988); however, I didn't want to generate confusion by
changing the string lengths from version 1 to version 2.
Even if they are somewhat over-represented in Dhrystone, string operations are
frequent enough that it makes sense to implement them in the most efficient
way possible, not only for benchmarking purposes. This means that they can
and should be written in assembly language code. ANSI C also explicitly allows
the strings functions to be implemented as macros, i.e. by inline code.
There is also a third way to speed up the "strcpy" statement in Dhrystone: For
this particular "strcpy" statement, the source of the assignment is a string
constant. Therefore, in contrast to calls to "strcpy" in the general case, the
compiler knows the length and alignment of the strings involved at compile
time and can generate code in the same efficient way as a Pascal compiler
(word instructions instead of byte instructions).
This is not allowed in the case of the "strcmp" call: Here, the addresses are
formal procedure parameters, and no assumptions can be made about the length
or alignment of the strings. Any such assumptions would indicate an incorrect
implementation. They might work for Dhrystone, where the strings are in fact
word-aligned with typical compilers, but other programs would deliver
incorrect results.
So, for an apple-to-apple comparison between processors, and not between
several possible (legal or illegal) degrees of compiler optimization, one
should check that the systems are comparable with respect to the following
three points:
(1) String functions in assembly language vs. in C
Frequently used functions such as the string functions can and should be
written in assembly language, and all serious C language systems known
to me do this. (I list this point for completeness only.) Note that
processors with an instruction that checks a word for a null byte (such
as AMD's 29000 and Intel's 80960) have an advantage here. (This
advantage decreases relatively if optimization (3) is applied.) Due to
the length of the strings involved in Dhrystone, this advantage may be
considered too high in perspective, but it is certainly legal to use
such instructions - after all, these situations are what they were
invented for.
(2) String function code inline vs. as library functions.
ANSI C has created a new situation, compared with the older
Kernighan/Ritchie C. In the original C, the definition of the string
function was not part of the language. Now it is, and inlining is
explicitly allowed. I probably should have stated more clearly in my
SIGPLAN Notices paper that the rule "No procedure inlining for
Dhrystone" referred to the user level procedures only and not to the
library routines.
(3) Fixed-length and alignment assumptions for the strings
Compilers should be allowed to optimize in these cases if (and only if)
it is safe to do so. For Dhrystone, this is the "strcpy" statement, but
not the "strcmp" statement (unless, of course, the "strcmp" code
explicitly checks the alignment at execution time and branches
accordingly). A "Dhrystone switch" for the compiler that causes the
generation of code that may not work under certain circumstances is
certainly inappropriate for comparisons. It has been reported in Usenet
that some C compilers provide such a compiler option; since I don't have
access to all C compilers involved, I cannot verify this.
If the fixed-length and word-alignment assumption can be used, a wide
bus that permits fast multi-word load instructions certainly does help;
however, this fact by itself should not make a really big difference.
A check of these points - something that is necessary for a thorough
evaluation and comparison of the Dhrystone performance claims - requires
object code listings as well as listings for the string functions (strcpy,
strcmp) that are possibly called by the program.
I don't pretend that Dhrystone is a perfect tool to measure the integer
performance of microprocessors. The more it is used and discussed, the more I
myself learn about aspects that I hadn't noticed yet when I wrote the program.
And of course, the very success of a benchmark program is a danger in that
people may tune their compilers and/or hardware to it, and with this action
make it less useful.
Whetstone and Linpack have their critical points also: The Whetstone rating
depends heavily on the speed of the mathematical functions (sine, sqrt, ...),
and Linpack is sensitive to data alignment for some cache configurations.
Introduction of a standard set of public domain benchmark software (something
the SPEC effort attempts) is certainly a worthwhile thing. In the meantime,
people will continue to use whatever is available and widely distributed, and
Dhrystone ratings are probably still better than MIPS ratings if these are -
as often in industry - based on no reproducible derivation. However, any
serious performance evaluation requires more than just a comparison of raw
numbers; one has to make sure that the numbers have been obtained in a
comparable way.

423
testsuites/benchmarks/dhrystone/dhry.h Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,423 @@
/*
****************************************************************************
*
* "DHRYSTONE" Benchmark Program
* -----------------------------
*
* Version: C, Version 2.1
*
* File: dhry.h (part 1 of 3)
*
* Date: May 25, 1988
*
* Author: Reinhold P. Weicker
* Siemens AG, AUT E 51
* Postfach 3220
* 8520 Erlangen
* Germany (West)
* Phone: [+49]-9131-7-20330
* (8-17 Central European Time)
* Usenet: ..!mcsun!unido!estevax!weicker
*
* Original Version (in Ada) published in
* "Communications of the ACM" vol. 27., no. 10 (Oct. 1984),
* pp. 1013 - 1030, together with the statistics
* on which the distribution of statements etc. is based.
*
* In this C version, the following C library functions are used:
* - strcpy, strcmp (inside the measurement loop)
* - printf, scanf (outside the measurement loop)
* In addition, Berkeley UNIX system calls "times ()" or "time ()"
* are used for execution time measurement. For measurements
* on other systems, these calls have to be changed.
*
* Collection of Results:
* Reinhold Weicker (address see above) and
*
* Rick Richardson
* PC Research. Inc.
* 94 Apple Orchard Drive
* Tinton Falls, NJ 07724
* Phone: (201) 389-8963 (9-17 EST)
* Usenet: ...!uunet!pcrat!rick
*
* Please send results to Rick Richardson and/or Reinhold Weicker.
* Complete information should be given on hardware and software used.
* Hardware information includes: Machine type, CPU, type and size
* of caches; for microprocessors: clock frequency, memory speed
* (number of wait states).
* Software information includes: Compiler (and runtime library)
* manufacturer and version, compilation switches, OS version.
* The Operating System version may give an indication about the
* compiler; Dhrystone itself performs no OS calls in the measurement loop.
*
* The complete output generated by the program should be mailed
* such that at least some checks for correctness can be made.
*
***************************************************************************
*
* History: This version C/2.1 has been made for two reasons:
*
* 1) There is an obvious need for a common C version of
* Dhrystone, since C is at present the most popular system
* programming language for the class of processors
* (microcomputers, minicomputers) where Dhrystone is used most.
* There should be, as far as possible, only one C version of
* Dhrystone such that results can be compared without
* restrictions. In the past, the C versions distributed
* by Rick Richardson (Version 1.1) and by Reinhold Weicker
* had small (though not significant) differences.
*
* 2) As far as it is possible without changes to the Dhrystone
* statistics, optimizing compilers should be prevented from
* removing significant statements.
*
* This C version has been developed in cooperation with
* Rick Richardson (Tinton Falls, NJ), it incorporates many
* ideas from the "Version 1.1" distributed previously by
* him over the UNIX network Usenet.
* I also thank Chaim Benedelac (National Semiconductor),
* David Ditzel (SUN), Earl Killian and John Mashey (MIPS),
* Alan Smith and Rafael Saavedra-Barrera (UC at Berkeley)
* for their help with comments on earlier versions of the
* benchmark.
*
* Changes: In the initialization part, this version follows mostly
* Rick Richardson's version distributed via Usenet, not the
* version distributed earlier via floppy disk by Reinhold Weicker.
* As a concession to older compilers, names have been made
* unique within the first 8 characters.
* Inside the measurement loop, this version follows the
* version previously distributed by Reinhold Weicker.
*
* At several places in the benchmark, code has been added,
* but within the measurement loop only in branches that
* are not executed. The intention is that optimizing compilers
* should be prevented from moving code out of the measurement
* loop, or from removing code altogether. Since the statements
* that are executed within the measurement loop have NOT been
* changed, the numbers defining the "Dhrystone distribution"
* (distribution of statements, operand types and locality)
* still hold. Except for sophisticated optimizing compilers,
* execution times for this version should be the same as
* for previous versions.
*
* Since it has proven difficult to subtract the time for the
* measurement loop overhead in a correct way, the loop check
* has been made a part of the benchmark. This does have
* an impact - though a very minor one - on the distribution
* statistics which have been updated for this version.
*
* All changes within the measurement loop are described
* and discussed in the companion paper "Rationale for
* Dhrystone version 2".
*
* Because of the self-imposed limitation that the order and
* distribution of the executed statements should not be
* changed, there are still cases where optimizing compilers
* may not generate code for some statements. To a certain
* degree, this is unavoidable for small synthetic benchmarks.
* Users of the benchmark are advised to check code listings
* whether code is generated for all statements of Dhrystone.
*
* Version 2.1 is identical to version 2.0 distributed via
* the UNIX network Usenet in March 1988 except that it corrects
* some minor deficiencies that were found by users of version 2.0.
* The only change within the measurement loop is that a
* non-executed "else" part was added to the "if" statement in
* Func_3, and a non-executed "else" part removed from Proc_3.
*
***************************************************************************
*
* Defines: The following "Defines" are possible:
* -DREG=register (default: Not defined)
* As an approximation to what an average C programmer
* might do, the "register" storage class is applied
* (if enabled by -DREG=register)
* - for local variables, if they are used (dynamically)
* five or more times
* - for parameters if they are used (dynamically)
* six or more times
* Note that an optimal "register" strategy is
* compiler-dependent, and that "register" declarations
* do not necessarily lead to faster execution.
* -DNOSTRUCTASSIGN (default: Not defined)
* Define if the C compiler does not support
* assignment of structures.
* -DNOENUMS (default: Not defined)
* Define if the C compiler does not support
* enumeration types.
* -DTIMES (default)
* -DTIME
* The "times" function of UNIX (returning process times)
* or the "time" function (returning wallclock time)
* is used for measurement.
* For single user machines, "time ()" is adequate. For
* multi-user machines where you cannot get single-user
* access, use the "times ()" function. If you have
* neither, use a stopwatch in the dead of night.
* "printf"s are provided marking the points "Start Timer"
* and "Stop Timer". DO NOT use the UNIX "time(1)"
* command, as this will measure the total time to
* run this program, which will (erroneously) include
* the time to allocate storage (malloc) and to perform
* the initialization.
* -DHZ=nnn
* In Berkeley UNIX, the function "times" returns process
* time in 1/HZ seconds, with HZ = 60 for most systems.
* CHECK YOUR SYSTEM DESCRIPTION BEFORE YOU JUST APPLY
* A VALUE.
*
***************************************************************************
*
* Compilation model and measurement (IMPORTANT):
*
* This C version of Dhrystone consists of three files:
* - dhry.h (this file, containing global definitions and comments)
* - dhry_1.c (containing the code corresponding to Ada package Pack_1)
* - dhry_2.c (containing the code corresponding to Ada package Pack_2)
*
* The following "ground rules" apply for measurements:
* - Separate compilation
* - No procedure merging
* - Otherwise, compiler optimizations are allowed but should be indicated
* - Default results are those without register declarations
* See the companion paper "Rationale for Dhrystone Version 2" for a more
* detailed discussion of these ground rules.
*
* For 16-Bit processors (e.g. 80186, 80286), times for all compilation
* models ("small", "medium", "large" etc.) should be given if possible,
* together with a definition of these models for the compiler system used.
*
**************************************************************************
*
* Dhrystone (C version) statistics:
*
* [Comment from the first distribution, updated for version 2.
* Note that because of language differences, the numbers are slightly
* different from the Ada version.]
*
* The following program contains statements of a high level programming
* language (here: C) in a distribution considered representative:
*
* assignments 52 (51.0 %)
* control statements 33 (32.4 %)
* procedure, function calls 17 (16.7 %)
*
* 103 statements are dynamically executed. The program is balanced with
* respect to the three aspects:
*
* - statement type
* - operand type
* - operand locality
* operand global, local, parameter, or constant.
*
* The combination of these three aspects is balanced only approximately.
*
* 1. Statement Type:
* ----------------- number
*
* V1 = V2 9
* (incl. V1 = F(..)
* V = Constant 12
* Assignment, 7
* with array element
* Assignment, 6
* with record component
* --
* 34 34
*
* X = Y +|-|"&&"|"|" Z 5
* X = Y +|-|"==" Constant 6
* X = X +|- 1 3
* X = Y *|/ Z 2
* X = Expression, 1
* two operators
* X = Expression, 1
* three operators
* --
* 18 18
*
* if .... 14
* with "else" 7
* without "else" 7
* executed 3
* not executed 4
* for ... 7 | counted every time
* while ... 4 | the loop condition
* do ... while 1 | is evaluated
* switch ... 1
* break 1
* declaration with 1
* initialization
* --
* 34 34
*
* P (...) procedure call 11
* user procedure 10
* library procedure 1
* X = F (...)
* function call 6
* user function 5
* library function 1
* --
* 17 17
* ---
* 103
*
* The average number of parameters in procedure or function calls
* is 1.82 (not counting the function values as implicit parameters).
*
*
* 2. Operators
* ------------
* number approximate
* percentage
*
* Arithmetic 32 50.8
*
* + 21 33.3
* - 7 11.1
* * 3 4.8
* / (int div) 1 1.6
*
* Comparison 27 42.8
*
* == 9 14.3
* /= 4 6.3
* > 1 1.6
* < 3 4.8
* >= 1 1.6
* <= 9 14.3
*
* Logic 4 6.3
*
* && (AND-THEN) 1 1.6
* | (OR) 1 1.6
* ! (NOT) 2 3.2
*
* -- -----
* 63 100.1
*
*
* 3. Operand Type (counted once per operand reference):
* ---------------
* number approximate
* percentage
*
* Integer 175 72.3 %
* Character 45 18.6 %
* Pointer 12 5.0 %
* String30 6 2.5 %
* Array 2 0.8 %
* Record 2 0.8 %
* --- -------
* 242 100.0 %
*
* When there is an access path leading to the final operand (e.g. a record
* component), only the final data type on the access path is counted.
*
*
* 4. Operand Locality:
* -------------------
* number approximate
* percentage
*
* local variable 114 47.1 %
* global variable 22 9.1 %
* parameter 45 18.6 %
* value 23 9.5 %
* reference 22 9.1 %
* function result 6 2.5 %
* constant 55 22.7 %
* --- -------
* 242 100.0 %
*
*
* The program does not compute anything meaningful, but it is syntactically
* and semantically correct. All variables have a value assigned to them
* before they are used as a source operand.
*
* There has been no explicit effort to account for the effects of a
* cache, or to balance the use of long or short displacements for code or
* data.
*
***************************************************************************
*/
/* Compiler and system dependent definitions: */
#ifndef TIME
#define TIMES
#endif
/* Use times(2) time function unless */
/* explicitly defined otherwise */
#ifdef TIMES
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <sys/times.h>
/* for "times" */
#endif
#define Mic_secs_Per_Second 1000000.0
/* Berkeley UNIX C returns process times in seconds/HZ */
#ifdef NOSTRUCTASSIGN
#define structassign(d, s) memcpy(&(d), &(s), sizeof(d))
#else
#define structassign(d, s) d = s
#endif
#ifdef NOENUM
#define Ident_1 0
#define Ident_2 1
#define Ident_3 2
#define Ident_4 3
#define Ident_5 4
typedef int Enumeration;
#else
typedef enum {Ident_1, Ident_2, Ident_3, Ident_4, Ident_5}
Enumeration;
#endif
/* for boolean and enumeration types in Ada, Pascal */
/* General definitions: */
#include <stdio.h>
/* for strcpy, strcmp */
#define Null 0
/* Value of a Null pointer */
#define true 1
#define false 0
typedef int One_Thirty;
typedef int One_Fifty;
typedef char Capital_Letter;
typedef int Boolean;
typedef char Str_30 [31];
typedef int Arr_1_Dim [50];
typedef int Arr_2_Dim [50] [50];
typedef struct record
{
struct record *Ptr_Comp;
Enumeration Discr;
union {
struct {
Enumeration Enum_Comp;
int Int_Comp;
char Str_Comp [31];
} var_1;
struct {
Enumeration E_Comp_2;
char Str_2_Comp [31];
} var_2;
struct {
char Ch_1_Comp;
char Ch_2_Comp;
} var_3;
} variant;
} Rec_Type, *Rec_Pointer;

385
testsuites/benchmarks/dhrystone/dhry_1.c Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,385 @@
/*
****************************************************************************
*
* "DHRYSTONE" Benchmark Program
* -----------------------------
*
* Version: C, Version 2.1
*
* File: dhry_1.c (part 2 of 3)
*
* Date: May 25, 1988
*
* Author: Reinhold P. Weicker
*
****************************************************************************
*/
#include "dhry.h"
/* Global Variables: */
Rec_Pointer Ptr_Glob,
Next_Ptr_Glob;
int Int_Glob;
Boolean Bool_Glob;
char Ch_1_Glob,
Ch_2_Glob;
int Arr_1_Glob [50];
int Arr_2_Glob [50] [50];
extern char *malloc ();
Enumeration Func_1 ();
/* forward declaration necessary since Enumeration may not simply be int */
#ifndef REG
Boolean Reg = false;
#define REG
/* REG becomes defined as empty */
/* i.e. no register variables */
#else
Boolean Reg = true;
#endif
/* variables for time measurement: */
#ifdef TIMES
struct tms time_info;
extern int times ();
/* see library function "times" */
#define Too_Small_Time 120
/* Measurements should last at least about 2 seconds */
#endif
#ifdef TIME
extern long time();
/* see library function "time" */
#define Too_Small_Time 2
/* Measurements should last at least 2 seconds */
#endif
long Begin_Time,
End_Time,
User_Time;
float Microseconds,
Dhrystones_Per_Second;
/* end of variables for time measurement */
main ()
/*****/
/* main program, corresponds to procedures */
/* Main and Proc_0 in the Ada version */
{
One_Fifty Int_1_Loc;
REG One_Fifty Int_2_Loc;
One_Fifty Int_3_Loc;
REG char Ch_Index;
Enumeration Enum_Loc;
Str_30 Str_1_Loc;
Str_30 Str_2_Loc;
REG int Run_Index;
REG int Number_Of_Runs;
/* Initializations */
Next_Ptr_Glob = (Rec_Pointer) malloc (sizeof (Rec_Type));
Ptr_Glob = (Rec_Pointer) malloc (sizeof (Rec_Type));
Ptr_Glob->Ptr_Comp = Next_Ptr_Glob;
Ptr_Glob->Discr = Ident_1;
Ptr_Glob->variant.var_1.Enum_Comp = Ident_3;
Ptr_Glob->variant.var_1.Int_Comp = 40;
strcpy (Ptr_Glob->variant.var_1.Str_Comp,
"DHRYSTONE PROGRAM, SOME STRING");
strcpy (Str_1_Loc, "DHRYSTONE PROGRAM, 1'ST STRING");
Arr_2_Glob [8][7] = 10;
/* Was missing in published program. Without this statement, */
/* Arr_2_Glob [8][7] would have an undefined value. */
/* Warning: With 16-Bit processors and Number_Of_Runs > 32000, */
/* overflow may occur for this array element. */
printf ("\n");
printf ("Dhrystone Benchmark, Version 2.1 (Language: C)\n");
printf ("\n");
if (Reg)
{
printf ("Program compiled with 'register' attribute\n");
printf ("\n");
}
else
{
printf ("Program compiled without 'register' attribute\n");
printf ("\n");
}
printf ("Please give the number of runs through the benchmark: ");
{
int n;
scanf ("%d", &n);
Number_Of_Runs = n;
}
printf ("\n");
printf ("Execution starts, %d runs through Dhrystone\n", Number_Of_Runs);
/***************/
/* Start timer */
/***************/
#ifdef TIMES
times (&time_info);
Begin_Time = (long) time_info.tms_utime;
#endif
#ifdef TIME
Begin_Time = time ( (long *) 0);
#endif
for (Run_Index = 1; Run_Index <= Number_Of_Runs; ++Run_Index)
{
Proc_5();
Proc_4();
/* Ch_1_Glob == 'A', Ch_2_Glob == 'B', Bool_Glob == true */
Int_1_Loc = 2;
Int_2_Loc = 3;
strcpy (Str_2_Loc, "DHRYSTONE PROGRAM, 2'ND STRING");
Enum_Loc = Ident_2;
Bool_Glob = ! Func_2 (Str_1_Loc, Str_2_Loc);
/* Bool_Glob == 1 */
while (Int_1_Loc < Int_2_Loc) /* loop body executed once */
{
Int_3_Loc = 5 * Int_1_Loc - Int_2_Loc;
/* Int_3_Loc == 7 */
Proc_7 (Int_1_Loc, Int_2_Loc, &Int_3_Loc);
/* Int_3_Loc == 7 */
Int_1_Loc += 1;
} /* while */
/* Int_1_Loc == 3, Int_2_Loc == 3, Int_3_Loc == 7 */
Proc_8 (Arr_1_Glob, Arr_2_Glob, Int_1_Loc, Int_3_Loc);
/* Int_Glob == 5 */
Proc_1 (Ptr_Glob);
for (Ch_Index = 'A'; Ch_Index <= Ch_2_Glob; ++Ch_Index)
/* loop body executed twice */
{
if (Enum_Loc == Func_1 (Ch_Index, 'C'))
/* then, not executed */
{
Proc_6 (Ident_1, &Enum_Loc);
strcpy (Str_2_Loc, "DHRYSTONE PROGRAM, 3'RD STRING");
Int_2_Loc = Run_Index;
Int_Glob = Run_Index;
}
}
/* Int_1_Loc == 3, Int_2_Loc == 3, Int_3_Loc == 7 */
Int_2_Loc = Int_2_Loc * Int_1_Loc;
Int_1_Loc = Int_2_Loc / Int_3_Loc;
Int_2_Loc = 7 * (Int_2_Loc - Int_3_Loc) - Int_1_Loc;
/* Int_1_Loc == 1, Int_2_Loc == 13, Int_3_Loc == 7 */
Proc_2 (&Int_1_Loc);
/* Int_1_Loc == 5 */
} /* loop "for Run_Index" */
/**************/
/* Stop timer */
/**************/
#ifdef TIMES
times (&time_info);
End_Time = (long) time_info.tms_utime;
#endif
#ifdef TIME
End_Time = time ( (long *) 0);
#endif
printf ("Execution ends\n");
printf ("\n");
printf ("Final values of the variables used in the benchmark:\n");
printf ("\n");
printf ("Int_Glob: %d\n", Int_Glob);
printf (" should be: %d\n", 5);
printf ("Bool_Glob: %d\n", Bool_Glob);
printf (" should be: %d\n", 1);
printf ("Ch_1_Glob: %c\n", Ch_1_Glob);
printf (" should be: %c\n", 'A');
printf ("Ch_2_Glob: %c\n", Ch_2_Glob);
printf (" should be: %c\n", 'B');
printf ("Arr_1_Glob[8]: %d\n", Arr_1_Glob[8]);
printf (" should be: %d\n", 7);
printf ("Arr_2_Glob[8][7]: %d\n", Arr_2_Glob[8][7]);
printf (" should be: Number_Of_Runs + 10\n");
printf ("Ptr_Glob->\n");
printf (" Ptr_Comp: %d\n", (int) Ptr_Glob->Ptr_Comp);
printf (" should be: (implementation-dependent)\n");
printf (" Discr: %d\n", Ptr_Glob->Discr);
printf (" should be: %d\n", 0);
printf (" Enum_Comp: %d\n", Ptr_Glob->variant.var_1.Enum_Comp);
printf (" should be: %d\n", 2);
printf (" Int_Comp: %d\n", Ptr_Glob->variant.var_1.Int_Comp);
printf (" should be: %d\n", 17);
printf (" Str_Comp: %s\n", Ptr_Glob->variant.var_1.Str_Comp);
printf (" should be: DHRYSTONE PROGRAM, SOME STRING\n");
printf ("Next_Ptr_Glob->\n");
printf (" Ptr_Comp: %d\n", (int) Next_Ptr_Glob->Ptr_Comp);
printf (" should be: (implementation-dependent), same as above\n");
printf (" Discr: %d\n", Next_Ptr_Glob->Discr);
printf (" should be: %d\n", 0);
printf (" Enum_Comp: %d\n", Next_Ptr_Glob->variant.var_1.Enum_Comp);
printf (" should be: %d\n", 1);
printf (" Int_Comp: %d\n", Next_Ptr_Glob->variant.var_1.Int_Comp);
printf (" should be: %d\n", 18);
printf (" Str_Comp: %s\n",
Next_Ptr_Glob->variant.var_1.Str_Comp);
printf (" should be: DHRYSTONE PROGRAM, SOME STRING\n");
printf ("Int_1_Loc: %d\n", Int_1_Loc);
printf (" should be: %d\n", 5);
printf ("Int_2_Loc: %d\n", Int_2_Loc);
printf (" should be: %d\n", 13);
printf ("Int_3_Loc: %d\n", Int_3_Loc);
printf (" should be: %d\n", 7);
printf ("Enum_Loc: %d\n", Enum_Loc);
printf (" should be: %d\n", 1);
printf ("Str_1_Loc: %s\n", Str_1_Loc);
printf (" should be: DHRYSTONE PROGRAM, 1'ST STRING\n");
printf ("Str_2_Loc: %s\n", Str_2_Loc);
printf (" should be: DHRYSTONE PROGRAM, 2'ND STRING\n");
printf ("\n");
User_Time = End_Time - Begin_Time;
if (User_Time < Too_Small_Time)
{
printf ("Measured time too small to obtain meaningful results\n");
printf ("Please increase number of runs\n");
printf ("\n");
}
else
{
#ifdef TIME
Microseconds = (float) User_Time * Mic_secs_Per_Second
/ (float) Number_Of_Runs;
Dhrystones_Per_Second = (float) Number_Of_Runs / (float) User_Time;
#else
Microseconds = (float) User_Time * Mic_secs_Per_Second
/ ((float) HZ * ((float) Number_Of_Runs));
Dhrystones_Per_Second = ((float) HZ * (float) Number_Of_Runs)
/ (float) User_Time;
#endif
printf ("Microseconds for one run through Dhrystone: ");
printf ("%6.1f \n", Microseconds);
printf ("Dhrystones per Second: ");
printf ("%6.1f \n", Dhrystones_Per_Second);
printf ("\n");
}
}
Proc_1 (Ptr_Val_Par)
/******************/
REG Rec_Pointer Ptr_Val_Par;
/* executed once */
{
REG Rec_Pointer Next_Record = Ptr_Val_Par->Ptr_Comp;
/* == Ptr_Glob_Next */
/* Local variable, initialized with Ptr_Val_Par->Ptr_Comp, */
/* corresponds to "rename" in Ada, "with" in Pascal */
structassign (*Ptr_Val_Par->Ptr_Comp, *Ptr_Glob);
Ptr_Val_Par->variant.var_1.Int_Comp = 5;
Next_Record->variant.var_1.Int_Comp
= Ptr_Val_Par->variant.var_1.Int_Comp;
Next_Record->Ptr_Comp = Ptr_Val_Par->Ptr_Comp;
Proc_3 (&Next_Record->Ptr_Comp);
/* Ptr_Val_Par->Ptr_Comp->Ptr_Comp
== Ptr_Glob->Ptr_Comp */
if (Next_Record->Discr == Ident_1)
/* then, executed */
{
Next_Record->variant.var_1.Int_Comp = 6;
Proc_6 (Ptr_Val_Par->variant.var_1.Enum_Comp,
&Next_Record->variant.var_1.Enum_Comp);
Next_Record->Ptr_Comp = Ptr_Glob->Ptr_Comp;
Proc_7 (Next_Record->variant.var_1.Int_Comp, 10,
&Next_Record->variant.var_1.Int_Comp);
}
else /* not executed */
structassign (*Ptr_Val_Par, *Ptr_Val_Par->Ptr_Comp);
} /* Proc_1 */
Proc_2 (Int_Par_Ref)
/******************/
/* executed once */
/* *Int_Par_Ref == 1, becomes 4 */
One_Fifty *Int_Par_Ref;
{
One_Fifty Int_Loc;
Enumeration Enum_Loc;
Int_Loc = *Int_Par_Ref + 10;
do /* executed once */
if (Ch_1_Glob == 'A')
/* then, executed */
{
Int_Loc -= 1;
*Int_Par_Ref = Int_Loc - Int_Glob;
Enum_Loc = Ident_1;
} /* if */
while (Enum_Loc != Ident_1); /* true */
} /* Proc_2 */
Proc_3 (Ptr_Ref_Par)
/******************/
/* executed once */
/* Ptr_Ref_Par becomes Ptr_Glob */
Rec_Pointer *Ptr_Ref_Par;
{
if (Ptr_Glob != Null)
/* then, executed */
*Ptr_Ref_Par = Ptr_Glob->Ptr_Comp;
Proc_7 (10, Int_Glob, &Ptr_Glob->variant.var_1.Int_Comp);
} /* Proc_3 */
Proc_4 () /* without parameters */
/*******/
/* executed once */
{
Boolean Bool_Loc;
Bool_Loc = Ch_1_Glob == 'A';
Bool_Glob = Bool_Loc | Bool_Glob;
Ch_2_Glob = 'B';
} /* Proc_4 */
Proc_5 () /* without parameters */
/*******/
/* executed once */
{
Ch_1_Glob = 'A';
Bool_Glob = false;
} /* Proc_5 */
/* Procedure for the assignment of structures, */
/* if the C compiler doesn't support this feature */
#ifdef NOSTRUCTASSIGN
memcpy (d, s, l)
register char *d;
register char *s;
register int l;
{
while (l--) *d++ = *s++;
}
#endif

192
testsuites/benchmarks/dhrystone/dhry_2.c Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,192 @@
/*
****************************************************************************
*
* "DHRYSTONE" Benchmark Program
* -----------------------------
*
* Version: C, Version 2.1
*
* File: dhry_2.c (part 3 of 3)
*
* Date: May 25, 1988
*
* Author: Reinhold P. Weicker
*
****************************************************************************
*/
#include "dhry.h"
#ifndef REG
#define REG
/* REG becomes defined as empty */
/* i.e. no register variables */
#endif
extern int Int_Glob;
extern char Ch_1_Glob;
Proc_6 (Enum_Val_Par, Enum_Ref_Par)
/*********************************/
/* executed once */
/* Enum_Val_Par == Ident_3, Enum_Ref_Par becomes Ident_2 */
Enumeration Enum_Val_Par;
Enumeration *Enum_Ref_Par;
{
*Enum_Ref_Par = Enum_Val_Par;
if (! Func_3 (Enum_Val_Par))
/* then, not executed */
*Enum_Ref_Par = Ident_4;
switch (Enum_Val_Par)
{
case Ident_1:
*Enum_Ref_Par = Ident_1;
break;
case Ident_2:
if (Int_Glob > 100)
/* then */
*Enum_Ref_Par = Ident_1;
else *Enum_Ref_Par = Ident_4;
break;
case Ident_3: /* executed */
*Enum_Ref_Par = Ident_2;
break;
case Ident_4: break;
case Ident_5:
*Enum_Ref_Par = Ident_3;
break;
} /* switch */
} /* Proc_6 */
Proc_7 (Int_1_Par_Val, Int_2_Par_Val, Int_Par_Ref)
/**********************************************/
/* executed three times */
/* first call: Int_1_Par_Val == 2, Int_2_Par_Val == 3, */
/* Int_Par_Ref becomes 7 */
/* second call: Int_1_Par_Val == 10, Int_2_Par_Val == 5, */
/* Int_Par_Ref becomes 17 */
/* third call: Int_1_Par_Val == 6, Int_2_Par_Val == 10, */
/* Int_Par_Ref becomes 18 */
One_Fifty Int_1_Par_Val;
One_Fifty Int_2_Par_Val;
One_Fifty *Int_Par_Ref;
{
One_Fifty Int_Loc;
Int_Loc = Int_1_Par_Val + 2;
*Int_Par_Ref = Int_2_Par_Val + Int_Loc;
} /* Proc_7 */
Proc_8 (Arr_1_Par_Ref, Arr_2_Par_Ref, Int_1_Par_Val, Int_2_Par_Val)
/*********************************************************************/
/* executed once */
/* Int_Par_Val_1 == 3 */
/* Int_Par_Val_2 == 7 */
Arr_1_Dim Arr_1_Par_Ref;
Arr_2_Dim Arr_2_Par_Ref;
int Int_1_Par_Val;
int Int_2_Par_Val;
{
REG One_Fifty Int_Index;
REG One_Fifty Int_Loc;
Int_Loc = Int_1_Par_Val + 5;
Arr_1_Par_Ref [Int_Loc] = Int_2_Par_Val;
Arr_1_Par_Ref [Int_Loc+1] = Arr_1_Par_Ref [Int_Loc];
Arr_1_Par_Ref [Int_Loc+30] = Int_Loc;
for (Int_Index = Int_Loc; Int_Index <= Int_Loc+1; ++Int_Index)
Arr_2_Par_Ref [Int_Loc] [Int_Index] = Int_Loc;
Arr_2_Par_Ref [Int_Loc] [Int_Loc-1] += 1;
Arr_2_Par_Ref [Int_Loc+20] [Int_Loc] = Arr_1_Par_Ref [Int_Loc];
Int_Glob = 5;
} /* Proc_8 */
Enumeration Func_1 (Ch_1_Par_Val, Ch_2_Par_Val)
/*************************************************/
/* executed three times */
/* first call: Ch_1_Par_Val == 'H', Ch_2_Par_Val == 'R' */
/* second call: Ch_1_Par_Val == 'A', Ch_2_Par_Val == 'C' */
/* third call: Ch_1_Par_Val == 'B', Ch_2_Par_Val == 'C' */
Capital_Letter Ch_1_Par_Val;
Capital_Letter Ch_2_Par_Val;
{
Capital_Letter Ch_1_Loc;
Capital_Letter Ch_2_Loc;
Ch_1_Loc = Ch_1_Par_Val;
Ch_2_Loc = Ch_1_Loc;
if (Ch_2_Loc != Ch_2_Par_Val)
/* then, executed */
return (Ident_1);
else /* not executed */
{
Ch_1_Glob = Ch_1_Loc;
return (Ident_2);
}
} /* Func_1 */
Boolean Func_2 (Str_1_Par_Ref, Str_2_Par_Ref)
/*************************************************/
/* executed once */
/* Str_1_Par_Ref == "DHRYSTONE PROGRAM, 1'ST STRING" */
/* Str_2_Par_Ref == "DHRYSTONE PROGRAM, 2'ND STRING" */
Str_30 Str_1_Par_Ref;
Str_30 Str_2_Par_Ref;
{
REG One_Thirty Int_Loc;
Capital_Letter Ch_Loc;
Int_Loc = 2;
while (Int_Loc <= 2) /* loop body executed once */
if (Func_1 (Str_1_Par_Ref[Int_Loc],
Str_2_Par_Ref[Int_Loc+1]) == Ident_1)
/* then, executed */
{
Ch_Loc = 'A';
Int_Loc += 1;
} /* if, while */
if (Ch_Loc >= 'W' && Ch_Loc < 'Z')
/* then, not executed */
Int_Loc = 7;
if (Ch_Loc == 'R')
/* then, not executed */
return (true);
else /* executed */
{
if (strcmp (Str_1_Par_Ref, Str_2_Par_Ref) > 0)
/* then, not executed */
{
Int_Loc += 7;
Int_Glob = Int_Loc;
return (true);
}
else /* executed */
return (false);
} /* if Ch_Loc */
} /* Func_2 */
Boolean Func_3 (Enum_Par_Val)
/***************************/
/* executed once */
/* Enum_Par_Val == Ident_3 */
Enumeration Enum_Par_Val;
{
Enumeration Enum_Loc;
Enum_Loc = Enum_Par_Val;
if (Enum_Loc == Ident_3)
/* then, executed */
return (true);
else /* not executed */
return (false);
} /* Func_3 */