Lpc2000

I do not think Keil was trying to be insidious with their comparison
of their tools with other ARM compilers. If so, then Keil would be #1
in all reported parameters. 

Using a widely recognized benchmark like Dhrystone removes the chance
that an the benchmark is written to favor the quirks of a particular
compiler. 

They include the source code that they used to run the test on their
evaluation CD.

The GNU source code for the Dhrystone is on the CD-ROM at:
  \Keil\ARM\GNU\Examples\DHRY\

The Keil source code is the Dhrystone on the CD-ROM at:
  \Keil\ARM\Examples\DHRY\

Using the simulator allowed the test to be hardware neutral. Since the
simulator will take a hex file created by any tool set, it should not
favor any particular compiler. It also makes it easier for an end user
to reproduce the test.

No benchmark is perfect; just because a compiler does well under one
benchmark, does not mean your source code will do equally well. 

--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "ukkie9a" <docent@c...> wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> 
> To satisfy my curiosity (and verify the code generation of the GNU
> compiler), I repeated the Dhrystone benchmark with GNU GCC after
> reading the tables in the (otherwise nice book) "The Insider's Guide
> to the Philips ARM7-Based Microcontrollers" by Trevor Martin (see
> http://www.hitex.co.uk/arm/lpc2000book/index.html) and finding the
> same table on KEILs web site.
> 
> My results, which you can read about on
> http://compuphase.com/dhrystone.htm, differ from the published results
> by a factor of 5!
> 
> Kind regards,
> Thiadmer Riemersma