[PATCH 2/7] benchmarks/dhrystone: Import

Sebastian Huber sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de
Tue Mar 28 12:55:57 UTC 2017


Import dhrystone sources from:

http://www.netlib.org/benchmark/dhry-c
---
 testsuites/benchmarks/dhrystone/RATIONALE  | 361 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
 testsuites/benchmarks/dhrystone/README_C   |  78 ++++++
 testsuites/benchmarks/dhrystone/VARIATIONS | 157 +++++++++++
 testsuites/benchmarks/dhrystone/dhry.h     | 423 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 testsuites/benchmarks/dhrystone/dhry_1.c   | 385 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 testsuites/benchmarks/dhrystone/dhry_2.c   | 192 +++++++++++++
 6 files changed, 1596 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 testsuites/benchmarks/dhrystone/RATIONALE
 create mode 100644 testsuites/benchmarks/dhrystone/README_C
 create mode 100644 testsuites/benchmarks/dhrystone/VARIATIONS
 create mode 100644 testsuites/benchmarks/dhrystone/dhry.h
 create mode 100644 testsuites/benchmarks/dhrystone/dhry_1.c
 create mode 100644 testsuites/benchmarks/dhrystone/dhry_2.c

diff --git a/testsuites/benchmarks/dhrystone/RATIONALE b/testsuites/benchmarks/dhrystone/RATIONALE
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..926e046
--- /dev/null
+++ b/testsuites/benchmarks/dhrystone/RATIONALE
@@ -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
+
diff --git a/testsuites/benchmarks/dhrystone/README_C b/testsuites/benchmarks/dhrystone/README_C
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a27a192
--- /dev/null
+++ b/testsuites/benchmarks/dhrystone/README_C
@@ -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
diff --git a/testsuites/benchmarks/dhrystone/VARIATIONS b/testsuites/benchmarks/dhrystone/VARIATIONS
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3046cbd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/testsuites/benchmarks/dhrystone/VARIATIONS
@@ -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.
+
diff --git a/testsuites/benchmarks/dhrystone/dhry.h b/testsuites/benchmarks/dhrystone/dhry.h
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1714562
--- /dev/null
+++ b/testsuites/benchmarks/dhrystone/dhry.h
@@ -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;
+
+
diff --git a/testsuites/benchmarks/dhrystone/dhry_1.c b/testsuites/benchmarks/dhrystone/dhry_1.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7ab02a8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/testsuites/benchmarks/dhrystone/dhry_1.c
@@ -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
+
+
diff --git a/testsuites/benchmarks/dhrystone/dhry_2.c b/testsuites/benchmarks/dhrystone/dhry_2.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..63a3d3e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/testsuites/benchmarks/dhrystone/dhry_2.c
@@ -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 */
+
-- 
1.8.4.5




More information about the devel mailing list