Lpc2000

Hello Rod Moffitt,

> I personally ignore benchmarks because most of the time the results
> are skewed one way or another, and rarely are the test parameters
> and raw results publicized.

That said, "benchmarks followed by analysis" can improve your
understanding of the system.

For example, I have been developing software for a new product on a
test board containing an LPC2106, but the actual apparatus will
contain an LPC2138. One of the first things I will do on the prototype
of the apparatus (which I will have access to Monday or Tuesday) is to
run Dhrystone, to check whether I have set up the chip correctly. Now
that I know what to expect, any deviations will point me in the right
direction.

> If anyone from Keil is lurking on this list I would highly
> recommend responding. It either appears that your techs borked the
> tests or used some sort of 'invalid' test setup.

And this may very well have been unintentional. I have made all of the
"stupid mistakes" in benchmarking throughout my career. That is
another reason why benchmark results must be analysed. A simple trick
is to browse through the assembler code that the compiler generates.

Kind regards,
Thiadmer