---------------------------------------------------
NOTE: the following text file was automatically
generated from a document that is best read in
HTML format. To read it in the preferred format,
point your web browser at any of these 3 locations:
(1) http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/docs
(2) The docs directory of your SPEC CPU2000 CD -
for example:
/cdrom/docs/ (Unix)
E:\docs\ (NT)
(3) The docs directory on the system where you
have installed SPEC CPU2000 - for example
/usr/mydir/cpu2000/docs/ (Unix)
C:\My Directory$lcsuite\docs\ (NT)
---------------------------------------------------
SPEC CPU2000 Run and Reporting Rules
SPEC Open Systems Group
ABSTRACT
This document provides guidelines required to build, run, and report on
the SPEC CPU2000 benchmarks.
Edit history since V1.1:
* 15-Mar-2001: Clarify requirement that estimates be flagged
* 15-Mar-2001: Explain that submission to SPEC is encouraged but not
required.
* 15-Mar-2001: Expand the discussion of safety in baseline
* 15-Mar-2001: Require that MHz be a numeric field
* 15-Mar-2001: Clarify single-CPU testing of SMP systems
* 15-Mar-2001: Clarify disclosure requirements for memory
* 15-Mar-2001: Clarify requirements for disclosure when not submitted to
SPEC.
* 15-Mar-2001: HTML format
* 22-Apr-2001: Minor HTML cleanup; add history
* 22-Oct-2001: Add Fair Use rule.
* 22-Oct-2001: Clarify that the rule about use of names, 2.1.1, includes
preprocessor identifiers.
* 22-Oct-2001: Move the bulk of the portability rule from 2.2.6.3, where
it appeared to apply only to base, to the more general section 2.1, as
2.1.5.
* 22-Oct-2001: Change title of section 2.1 to better reflect its
contents.
* 22-Oct-2001: Make stronger statement about deviations from rules in
academic/research usage, in rule 4.5.
* 22-Oct-2001: Minor HTML fixups.
* 22-Oct-2001: Proposed version for V1.2 (approved 30-Oct)
(To check for possible updates to this document, please see
http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/ )
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Overview
Clicking one of the following will take you to the detailed table of
contents for that section:
Purpose
1. General Philosophy
2. Building SPEC CPU2000
3. Running SPEC CPU2000
4. Results Disclosure
5. Run Rule Exceptions
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Detailed Contents
Purpose
1. General Philosophy
1.1 Objective tests, provided in source code form
1.2 Conventions for optimization
1.3 SPEC may adapt the suites
1.4 Estimates are allowed
1.5 Submission to SPEC is encouraged
2.0 Building SPEC CPU2000
2.0.1 Peak and base builds
2.0.2 Runspec must be used
2.0.3 The runspec build environment
2.0.4 Continuous Build requirement
2.0.5 Changes to the runspec build environment
2.0.6 Cross-compilation allowed
2.0.7 Individual builds allowed
2.0.8 Tester's assertion of equivalence between build types
2.1 General Rules for Selecting Compilation Flags
2.1.1 Cannot use names
2.1.2 Limitations on library substitutions
2.1.3 Feedback directed optimization is allowed
2.1.4 Limitations on size changes
2.1.5 Portability flags
2.2 Base Optimization Rules
2.2.1 Safe
2.2.2 Same for all
2.2.3 Feedback directed optimization is allowed in base
2.2.4 Assertion flags may NOT be used in base
2.2.5 Floating point reordering allowed
2.2.6 Only 4 optimization switches
2.2.6.1 Unit of definition
2.2.6.2 Delimited lists
2.2.6.3 Portability flags in base
2.2.6.4 ANSI Compliance
2.2.6.5 Feedback invocation in Pass 1 and Pass 2
2.2.6.6 Location flags
2.2.6.7 Warnings, verbosity, output flags
2.2.6.8 Entire compilation system is counted
2.2.6.9 Assertion of ANSI compliance
2.2.6.10 Hidden switches
2.2.6.11 Installation-provided switches
2.2.6.12 Switches to declare 64-bit mode
2.2.6.13 Cross-module optimization
2.2.6.14 Base build environment
2.2.7 Safety and Standards Conformance
3. Running SPEC CPU2000
3.1 System Configuration
3.1.1 File Systems
3.1.2 System State
3.2 Additional Rules for Running SPECrate
3.2.1 Number of copies in peak
3.2.2 Number of copies in base
3.2.3 Single file system
3.3 Continuous Run Requirement
3.4 Run-time environment
3.5 Basepeak
4. Results Disclosure
4.1 Rules regarding availability date and systems not yet shipped
4.2 Configuration Disclosure
4.2.1 System Identification
4.2.2 Hardware Configuration
4.2.3 Software Configuration
4.2.4 Tuning Information
4.3 Test Results Disclosure
4.3.1 Speed Metrics
4.3.2 Throughput Metrics
4.4 Metric Selection
4.5 Research and Academic usage of CPU2000
4.6 Required Disclosures
4.7 Fair Use
5. Run Rule Exceptions
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Purpose
This document specifies how the benchmarks in the CPU2000 suites are to be
run for measuring and publicly reporting performance results, to ensure
that results generated with the suites are meaningful, comparable to other
generated results, and reproducible (with documentation covering factors
pertinent to reproducing the results).
Per the SPEC license agreement, all results publicly disclosed must adhere
to the SPEC Run and Reporting Rules, or be clearly marked as estimates.
The following basics are expected:
* Adherence to the SPEC general run rule philosophy, including:
* general availability of all components within 3 months of
publication.
* providing a suitable environment for C/C++/Fortran programs.
* Use of the SPEC tools for all published results, including:
* compilation of the benchmark with the SPEC tools.
* requiring the median of at least three runs of each benchmark to
help promote stability and reproducibility.
* requiring that a publishable result be generated with one
invocation of the SPEC tools.
* validating the benchmark output with the SPEC-provided validation
output to ensure that the benchmark ran to completion and
generated correct results.
* Adherence to the criteria for flag selection, including:
* proper use of feedback directed optimization for both base and
peak measurements.
* the use of only four optimization options (including
preprocessor, compiler and linker flags) for base measurements.
* Availability of a full disclosure report
* Clear distinction between measurements and estimates
Each of these points are discussed in further detail below.
Suggestions for improving this run methodology should be made to the SPEC
Open Systems Group (OSG) for consideration in future releases.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. General Philosophy
1.1 Objective tests, provided in source code form
SPEC believes the user community will benefit from an objective series of
tests which can serve as common reference and be considered as part of an
evaluation process.
SPEC CPU2000 provides benchmarks in the form of source code, which are
compiled according to the rules contained in this document. It is expected
that a tester can obtain a copy of the suites, install the hardware,
compilers, and other software described in another tester's result
disclosure, and reproduce the claimed performance (within a small range to
allow for run-to-run variation).
Benchmarks are provided in two suites: an integer suite, known as
CINT2000, and a floating point suite, known as CFP2000.
1.2 Conventions for optimization
SPEC is aware of the importance of optimizations in producing the best
system performance. SPEC is also aware that it is sometimes hard to draw
an exact line between legitimate optimizations that happen to benefit SPEC
benchmarks and optimizations that specifically target the SPEC benchmarks.
However, with the list below, SPEC wants to increase awareness of
implementers and end users to issues of unwanted benchmark-specific
optimizations that would be incompatible with SPEC's goal of fair
benchmarking.
To ensure that results are relevant to end-users, SPEC expects that the
hardware and software implementations used for the running the SPEC
benchmarks adhere to following conventions:
* Hardware and software used to run the CINT2000/CFP2000 benchmarks must
provide a suitable environment for running typical C, C++, or Fortran
programs.
* Optimizations must generate correct code for a class of programs,
where the class of programs must be larger than a single SPEC
benchmark or SPEC benchmark suite. This also applies to assertion
flags that may be used for peak compilation measurements (see
section 2.2.4).
* Optimizations must improve performance for a class of programs where
the class of programs must be larger than a single SPEC benchmark or
SPEC benchmark suite.
* The vendor encourages the implementation for general use.
* The implementation is generally available, documented and supported by
the providing vendor.
In cases where it appears that the above guidelines have not been
followed, SPEC may investigate such a claim and request that the offending
optimization (e.g. a SPEC-benchmark specific pattern matching) be backed
off and the results resubmitted. Or, SPEC may request that the vendor
correct the deficiency (e.g. make the optimization more general purpose or
correct problems with code generation) before submitting results based on
the optimization.
1.3 SPEC may adapt the suites
The SPEC Open Systems Group reserves the right to adapt the CINT2000 and
CFP2000 suites as it deems necessary to preserve its goal of fair
benchmarking (e.g. remove a benchmark, modify benchmark code or workload,
etc). If a change is made to a suite, SPEC will notify the appropriate
parties (i.e. members and licensees). SPEC may redesignate the metrics
(e.g. changing the metric from SPECfp2000 to SPECfp2000a). In the case
that a benchmark is removed, SPEC reserves the right to republish in
summary form adapted results for previously published systems, converted
to the new metric. In the case of other changes, such a republication may
necessitate re-testing and may require support from the original test
sponsor.
1.4 Estimates are allowed
SPEC CPU2000 metrics may be estimated. All estimates must be clearly
identified as such. Licensees are encouraged to give a rationale or
methodology for any estimates, and to publish actual SPEC CPU2000 metrics
as soon as possible. SPEC requires that every use of an estimated number
be flagged, rather than burying an asterisk at the bottom of a page. For
example, say something like this:
The JumboFast will achieve estimated performance of
Model 1 SPECint2000 50 est.
SPECfp2000 60 est.
Model 2 SPECint2000 70 est.
SPECfp2000 80 est.
1.5 Submission to SPEC is encouraged
SPEC encourages the submission of results for review by the relevant
subcommittee and subsequent publication on SPEC's web site
(http://www.spec.org/). SPEC uses a peer-review process prior to
publication, in order to improve consistency in the application and
interpretation of these run rules.
Submission to SPEC's review process is not required. Testers may publish
rule-compliant results independently. No matter where published, all
results publicly disclosed must adhere to the SPEC Run and Reporting
Rules, or be clearly marked as estimates. (See also rules 4.5 and 4.6,
below.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2.0 Building SPEC CPU2000
SPEC has adopted a set of rules defining how SPEC CPU2000 benchmark suites
must be built and run to produce peak and base metrics.
2.0.1 Peak and base builds
"Peak" metrics are produced by building each benchmark in the suite with a
set of optimizations individually tailored for that benchmark. The
optimizations selected must adhere to the set of general benchmark
optimization rules described in section 2.1 below. This may also be
referred to as "aggressive compilation".
"Base" metrics are produced by building all the benchmarks in the suite
with a common set of optimizations. In addition to the general benchmark
optimization rules (section 2.1), base optimizations must adhere to a
stricter set of rules described in section 2.2. These additional rules
serve to form a "baseline" of recommended performance optimizations for a
given system.
2.0.2 Runspec must be used
With the release of SPEC CPU2000 suites, a set of tools based on GNU Make
and Perl5 are supplied to build and run the benchmarks. To produce
publication-quality results, these SPEC tools must be used. This helps
ensure reproducibility of results by requiring that all individual
benchmarks in the suite are run in the same way and that a configuration
file that defines the optimizations used is available.
The primary tool is called runspec (runspec.bat for Windows NT). It is
described in the runspec documentation in the docs subdirectory of the
SPEC root directory -- in a Bourne shell that would be called
${SPEC}/docs/, or on NT %SPEC%\docs\ .
SPEC supplies pre-compiled versions of the tools for a variety of
platforms. If a new platform is used, please see
${SPEC}/docs/tools_build.txt for information on how to build the tools and
how to obtain approval for them.
For more complex ways of compilation, for example feedback-driven
compilation, SPEC has provided hooks in the tools so that such compilation
and execution is possible (see the tools documentation for details). Only
if, unexpectedly, such a compilation and execution should not be possible,
there is the possibility that the test sponsor can ask for a permission to
use performance-neutral alternatives (see section 5).
2.0.3 The runspec build environment
When runspec is used to build the SPEC CPU2000 benchmarks, it must be used
in generally available, documented, and supported environments (see
section 1), and any aspects of the environment that contribute to
performance must be disclosed to SPEC (see section 4).
On occasion, it may be possible to improve run time performance by
environmental choices at build time. For example, one might install a
performance monitor, turn on an operating system feature such as bigpages,
or set an environment variable that causes the cc driver to invoke a
faster version of the linker.
It is difficult to draw a precise line between environment settings that
are reasonable versus settings that are not. Some settings are obviously
not relevant to performance (such as hostname), and SPEC makes no attempt
to regulate such settings. But for settings that do have a performance
effect, for the sake of clarity, SPEC has chosen that:
* (a) It is acceptable to install whatever software the tester wishes,
including performance-enhancing software, provided that the software
is installed prior to starting the builds, remains installed
throughout the builds, is documented, supported, generally available,
and disclosed to SPEC.
* (b) It is acceptable to set whatever system configuration parameters
the tester wishes, provided that these are applied at boot time,
documented, supported, generally available, and disclosed to SPEC.
"Dynamic" system parameters (i.e. ones that do not require a reboot)
must nevertheless be applied at boot time, except as provided under
section 2.0.5.
* (c) After the boot process is completed, environment settings may be
made as follows:
* to specify resource limits, as in the Bourne shell ulimit
command, and
* to select major components of the compilation system, as in:
setenv CC_LOC /net/dist/version73/cc
setenv LD_LOC /net/opt/dist/ld-fast
provided that these settings are documented; supported; generally
available; disclosed to SPEC; made PRIOR to starting the build; and do
not change during the build, except as provided in section 2.0.5.
Environmental settings that meet 2.0.3 requirement (a), (b), or (c) do not
count against the limit of 4 switches (see section 2.2.6) unless they
violate the rule about hidden switches ( 2.2.6.10).
2.0.4 Continuous Build requirement
As described in section 1, it is expected that testers can reproduce other
testers' results. In particular, it must be possible for a new tester to
compile both the base and peak benchmarks for an entire suite (i.e.
CINT2000 or CFP2000) in one execution of runspec, with appropriate command
line arguments and an appropriate configuration file, and obtain
executable binaries that are (from a performance point of view) equivalent
to the binaries used by the original tester.
The simplest and least error-prone way to meet this requirement is for the
original tester to take production hardware, production software, a SPEC
config file, and the SPEC tools and actually build the benchmarks in a
single invocation of runspec on the System Under Test (SUT). But SPEC
realizes that there is a cost to benchmarking and would like to address
this, for example through the rules that follow regarding
cross-compilation and individual builds. However, in all cases, the tester
is taken to assert that the compiled executables will exhibit the same
performance as if they all had been compiled with a single invocation of
runspec (see 2.0.8).
2.0.5 Changes to the runspec build environment
SPEC CPU2000 base binaries must be built using the environment rules of
section 2.0.3, and may not rely upon any changes to the environment during
the build.
Note 1: base cross compiles using multiple hosts are allowed (2.0.6), but
the performance of the resulting binaries is not allowed to depend upon
environmental differences among the hosts. It must be possible to build
performance-equivalent base binaries with one set of switches (2.2.2), in
one execution of runspec (2.0.4), on one host, with one environment
(2.0.3).
For a peak build, the environment may be changed, subject to the following
constraints:
* The environment change must be accomplished using the SPEC-provided
config file hooks (such as fdo_pre0).
* The environment change must be fully disclosed to SPEC (see
section 4).
* The environment change must not be incompatible with a Continuous
Build (see section 2.0.4).
* The environment change must be accomplished using simple shell
commands (such as /usr/opt/performance_monitor -start, or setenv
BIGPAGES YES). It is not permitted to invoke a more complex entity
(such as a shell script, batch file, kdbx script, or NT registry
adjustment program) unless that entity is provided as part of a
generally-available software package. For example, a script could use
kdbx to adjust the setting of bigpages if that script were provided as
a part of the OS, but the tester could not write his or her own
scripts to hack the kernel just for SPEC.
Note 2: peak cross compiles using multiple hosts are allowed (2.0.6), but
the performance of the resulting binaries is not allowed to depend upon
environmental differences among the hosts. It must be possible to build
performance-equivalent peak binaries with one config file, in one
execution of runspec (2.0.4), in the same execution of runspec that built
the base binaries, on one host, starting from the environment used for the
base build (2.0.3), and changing that environment only through config file
hooks (2.0.5).
2.0.6 Cross-compilation allowed
It is permitted to use cross-compilation, that is, a building process
where the benchmark executables are built on a system (or systems) that
differ(s) from the SUT. The runspec tool must be used on all systems
(typically with -a build on the host(s) and -a validate on the SUT).
If all systems belong to the same product family and if the software used
to build the executables is available on all systems, this does not need
to be documented. In the case of a true cross compilation, (e.g. if the
software used to build the benchmark executables is not available on the
SUT, or the host system provides performance gains via specialized tuning
or hardware not on the SUT), the host system(s) and software used for the
benchmark building process must be documented in the Notes section. See
section 4.
It is permitted to use more than one host in a cross-compilation. If more
than one host is used in a cross-compilation, they must be sufficiently
equivalent so as not to violate rule 2.0.4. That is, it must be possible
to build the entire suite on a single host and obtain binaries that are
equivalent to the binaries produced using multiple hosts.
The purpose of allowing multiple hosts is so that testers can save time
when recompiling many programs. Multiple hosts may NOT be used in order to
gain performance advantages due to environmental differences among the
hosts. In fact, the tester must exercise great care to ensure that any
environment differences are performance neutral among the hosts, for
example by ensuring that each has the same version of the operating
system, the same performance software, the same compilers, and the same
libraries. The tester should exercise due diligence to ensure that
differences that appear to be performance neutral - such as differing MHz
or differing memory amounts on the build hosts - are in fact truly
neutral.
Multiple hosts may NOT be used in order to work around system or compiler
incompatibilities (e.g. compiling the SPECfp2000 C benchmarks on a
different OS version than the SPECfp2000 Fortran benchmarks in order to
meet the different compilers' respective OS requirements), since that
would violate the Continuous Build rule (2.0.4).
2.0.7 Individual builds allowed
It is permitted to build the benchmarks with multiple invocations of
runspec, for example during a tuning effort. But, the executables must be
built using a consistent set of software. If a change to the software
environment is introduced (for example, installing a new version of the C
compiler which is expected to improve the performance of one of the
floating point benchmarks), then all affected benchmarks must be rebuilt
(in this example, all the C benchmarks in the floating point suite).
2.0.8 Tester's assertion of equivalence between build types
The previous 4 paragraphs may appear to contradict each other (2.0.4
through 2.0.7), but the key word in 2.0.4 is the word "possible". Consider
the following sequence of events:
* A tester has built a complete set of CPU2000 executable images
("binaries") on her usual host system.
* A hot new SUT arrives for a limited period of time. It has no
compilers installed.
* A SPEC CPU2000 tree is installed on the SUT, along with the binaries
and config file generated on the usual host.
* It is learned that performance could be improved if the peak version
of 999.sluggard were compiled with -O5 instead of -O4.
* On the host system, the tester edits the config file to change to -O5
for 999.sluggard, and issues the command:
runspec -c myconfig -D -a build -T peak sluggard
* The tester copies the new binary and config file to the SUT
* A complete run is started by issuing the command:
runspec -c myconfig -a validate all
* Performance is as expected, and the results are submitted to SPEC
(including the config file).
In this example, the tester is taken to be asserting that the above
sequence of events produces binaries that are, from a performance point of
view, equivalent to binaries that would have been produced in a single
invocation of the tools. If there is some optimization that can only be
applied to individual benchmark builds and cannot be applied in a
continuous build, the optimization is not allowed.
Rule 2.0.8 is intended to provide some guidance about the kinds of
practices that are reasonable, but the ultimate responsibility for result
reproducibility lies with the tester. If the tester is uncertain whether a
cross-compile or an individual benchmark build is equivalent to a full
build on the SUT, then a full build on the SUT is required (or, in the
case of a true cross-compile which is documented as such, then a single
runspec -a build is required on a single host.) Although full builds add
to the cost of benchmarking, in some instances a full build in a single
runspec may be the only way to ensure that results will be reproducible.
2.1 General Rules for Selecting Compilation Flags
The following rules apply to compiler flag selection for SPEC CPU2000 Peak
and Base Metrics. Additional rules for Base Metrics follow in section 2.2.
2.1.1 Cannot use names
No source file or variable or subroutine name may be used within an
optimization flag or compiler option.
Identifiers used in preprocessor directives to select alternative source
code are also forbidden, except for a rule-compliant library substitution
(2.1.2) or an approved portability flag (2.1.5). For example, if a
benchmark source code uses one of:
#ifdef IDENTIFIER
#ifndef IDENTIFIER
#if defined IDENTIFIER
#if !defined IDENTIFIER
to provide alternative source code under the control of a compiler option
such as -DIDENTIFIER, such a switch may not be used unless it meets the
criteria of 2.1.2 or 2.1.5.
2.1.2 Limitations on library substitutions
Flags which substitute pre-computed (e.g. library-based) routines for
routines defined in the benchmark on the basis of the routine's name are
not allowed. Exceptions are:
a) the function alloca. It is permitted to use a flag that substitutes the
system's builtin_alloca for any C/C++ benchmark. The use of such a flag
shall furthermore not count as one of the allowed 4 base switches.
b) the level 1, 2 and 3 BLAS functions in the CFP2000 benchmarks, and the
netlib-interface-compliant FFT functions. Such substitution shall only be
acceptable in a peak run, not in base.
2.1.3 Feedback directed optimization is allowed.
Only the training input (which is automatically selected by runspec) may
be used for the run that generates the feedback data.
For peak runs, optimization with multiple feedback runs is also allowed.
The requirement to use only the train data set at compile time shall not
be taken to forbid the use of run-time dynamic optimization tools that
would observe the reference execution and dynamically modify the in-memory
copy of the benchmark. However, such tools would not be allowed to in any
way affect later executions of the same benchmark (for example, when
running multiple times in order to determine the median run time). Such
tools would also have to be disclosed in the submission of a result, and
would have to be used for the entire suite (see section 3.3).
2.1.4 Limitations on size changes
Flags that change a data type size to a size different from the default
size of the compilation system are not allowed. Exceptions are: a) C long
can be 32 or greater bits, b) pointer sizes can be set different from the
default size.
2.1.5 Portability Flags
A flag is considered a portability flag if, and only if, one of the
following two conditions hold:
(a) The flag is necessary for the successful compilation and correct
execution of the benchmark regardless of any or all compilation flags
used. That is, if it is possible to build and run the benchmark without
this flag, then this flag is not considered a portability flag.
(b) The benchmark is discovered to violate the ANSI standard, and the
compilation system needs to be so informed in order to avoid incorrect
optimizations.
For example, if a benchmark fails with
-O4
due to a standard violation, but works with either
-O0
or
-O4 -noansi_alias
then it would be permissible to use -noansi_alias as a portability flag.
Proposed portability flags are subject to scrutiny by the SPEC CPU
Subcommittee. The initial submissions for CPU2000 will include a reviewed
set of portability flags on several operating systems; later submitters
who propose to apply additional portability flags should prepare a
justification for their use. If the justification is 2.1.5(b), please
include a specific reference to the offending source code module and line
number, and a specific reference to the relevant sections of the
appropriate ANSI standard.
SPEC always prefers to have benchmarks obey the standard, and SPEC
attempts to fix as many violations as possible before release of the
suites. But it is recognized that some violations may not be detected
until years after a suite is released. In such a case, a portability
switch may be the practical solution. Alternatively, the subcommittee may
approve a source code fix.
For a given portability problem, the same flag(s) must be applied to all
affected benchmarks.
If a library is specified as a portability flag, SPEC may request that the
table of contents of the library be included in the disclosure.
2.2 Base Optimization Rules
In addition to the rules listed in section 2.1 above, the selection of
optimizations to be used to produce SPEC CPU2000 Base Metrics includes the
following:
2.2.1 Safe
The optimizations used are expected to be safe, and it is expected that
system or compiler vendors would endorse the general use of these
optimizations by customers who seek to achieve good application
performance.
2.2.2 Same for all
The same compiler and same set of optimization flags or options is used
for all benchmarks of a given language within a benchmark suite, except
for portability flags (see 2.1.5 below). All flags must be applied in the
same order for all benchmarks. The runspec documentation file covers how
to set this up with the SPEC tools.
Specifically, benchmarks that are written in Fortran-77 or Fortran-90 may
not use a different set of flags or different compiler invocation in a
base run. In a peak run, it is permissible to use different compiler
commands, as well as different flags, for each benchmark.
2.2.3 Feedback directed optimization is allowed in base.
The allowed steps are:
PASS1: compile the program
Training run: run the program with the train data set
PASS2: re-compile the program, or invoke a tool that
otherwise adjusts the program, and which uses
the observed profile from the training run.
PASS2 is optional. For example, it is conceivable that a daemon might
optimize the image automatically based on the training run, without
further tester intervention. Such a daemon would have to be noted in the
full disclosure to SPEC.
It is acceptable to use the various fdo_ hooks to clean up the results of
previous feedback compilations. The preferred hook is fdo_pre0 -- for
example:
fdo_pre0 = rm /tmp/prof/*Counts*
Other than such cleanup, no intermediate processing steps may be performed
between the steps listed above. If additional processing steps are
required, the optimization is allowed for peak only but not for base.
When a two-pass process is used, the flag(s) that explicitly control(s)
the generation or the use of feedback information can be - and usually
will be - different in the two compilation passes. For the other flags,
one of the two conditions must hold:
�1. The same set of flags are used for both invocations of the
compiler/linker. For example:
PASS1_CFLAGS= -gen_feedback -fast_library -opt1 -opt2
PASS2_CFLAGS= -use_feedback -fast_library -opt1 -opt2
�2. The set of flags in the first invocation are a subset of the flags
used in the second. For example:
PASS1_CFLAGS= -gen_feedback -fast_library
PASS2_CFLAGS= -use_feedback -fast_library -opt1 -opt2
2.2.4 Assertion flags may NOT be used in base.
An assertion flag is one that supplies semantic information that the
compilation system did not derive from the source statements of the
benchmark.
With an assertion flag, the programmer asserts to the compiler that the
program has certain nice properties that allow the compiler to apply more
aggressive optimization techniques (for example, that there is no aliasing
via C pointers). The problem is that there can be legal programs (possibly
strange, but still standard-conforming programs) where such a property
does not hold. These programs could crash or give incorrect results if an
assertion flag is used. This is the reason why such flags are sometimes
also called "unsafe flags". Assertion flags should never be applied to a
production program without previous careful checks; therefore they are
disallowed for base.
2.2.5 Floating point reordering allowed
Base results may use flags which affect the numerical accuracy or
sensitivity by reordering floating-point operations based on algebraic
identities.
2.2.6 Only 4 optimization switches
Base optimization is further restricted by limiting to four (4) the
maximum number of optimization switches that can be applied to create a
base result. An example of this would be:
cc general_opt processor_flag library other_opt
Where testers might use a flag for a general optimization, one to specify
the architecture, one to specify an optimal library, plus one other
optimization flag.
The following rules must be followed for selecting and counting
optimization flags:
2.2.6.1 Unit of definition
A flag is defined as a unit of definition to the compilation system. For
example, each of the following is defined as a single flag:
-O2
-inline
-qarch=ppc
-tp p5
-Xunroll0
-g3
-debug
-debug:none
/preprocessor="/unroll=4"
/link /compress_image
In the last example above, "/link" merely tells the driver to send the
flags that follow to the linker. The /compress_image actually tells the
linker to do something, and so counts as a single unit of definition. Each
action requested of the linker would count as a flag; for example:
/link /compress_image /static_addressing
would be 2 flags.
2.2.6.2 Delimited lists
Some compilers allow delimited lists (usually comma or space delimited)
behind an initial flag; for purposes of base, each optimization item in
the list counts as an optimization toward the limit of four. For example:
-K inline,unroll,strip_mine
counts as three optimization flags.
2.2.6.3 Portability flags in base
Portability flags are not counted in the count of four.
[Note: most of the run rule text formerly contained in this section is now
contained in section 2.1.5.]
2.2.6.4 ANSI Compliance
If a compiler flag causes a compiler to operate in an ANSI/ISO mode, such
a flag may be used without being counted in the count of four switches,
provided that the flag is used for all benchmarks of the given language in
the benchmark suite.
2.2.6.5 Feedback invocation in Pass 1 and Pass 2
Switches for feedback directed optimization follow the same rules (one
unit of definition) and count as one of the four optimization flags. Since
two passes are allowed for base, the first and second invocations of
activating feedback count as one flag. For example:
Pass 1: cc -prof_gather -O9 -go_fast -arch=404
Pass 2: cc -prof_use -O9 -go_fast -arch=404
This breaks down into [FDO invocation, optimization level, extra
optimization, and an architecture flag] and counts as an acceptable four
flags.
2.2.6.6 Location flags
Pointer or location flags (flags that indicate where to find data) are not
included in the four flag definition. For example:
-L/usr/ucblib
-prof_dir `pwd`
2.2.6.7 Warnings, verbosity, output flags
Flags that only suppress warnings (typically -w), flags that only create
object files (typically -c), flags that only affect the verbosity level of
the compiler driver (typically -v), and flags that only name the output
file (typically -o) are not counted as optimization flags.
2.2.6.8 Entire compilation system is counted
The four flag limit counts all options for all parts of the compilation
system, i.e. the entire transformation from SPEC supplied source code to
completed executable. The list below is a partial set of the types of
flags that would be included in the flag count:
* Linker options are also counted as part of the four optimization
flags.
* Preprocessor directives are counted as part of the four optimization
flags.
* Libraries, when not needed for portability, are counted as part of the
four optimization flags.
2.2.6.9 Assertion of ANSI compliance
Rule 2.2.4 shall not be taken to forbid the use of flags that assert that
a benchmark complies with one or more aspects of the ANSI standard. For
example, suppose that a compiler has an ANSI mode specified by saying
cc -relaxed_ansi, which provides the following extensions to the standard:
* support of common intrinsic functions
* subroutine argument type checking
* data alignment checking
It would be permissible in a base run to turn one or more of these
features off. If the command:
cc -relaxed_ansi -nointrinsic -noarg_check -noalign_check
were issued, this would be acceptable in a base run and would count as 3
optimization flags (the -relaxed_ansi is considered to be a dialect
selection, not an optimization switch. See 2.2.6.4).
2.2.6.10 Hidden switches
It is not permissible to use environment variables or login scripts to
defeat the four switch rule. For example, if a system allows the system
manager to put the following into /etc/cshrc.global
alias cc "cc -fast -O4 -unroll 8"
then the system manager has just spent 3 of the 4 allowable optimization
flags, the tester has only 1 left to spend, and the full disclosure must
document the switches from /etc/cshrc.global. Similarly, an environment
variable or login script may not be used to pass hidden switches to other
portions of the compilation system, such as pre-processors or the linker.
The behavior that is forbidden here is the hiding of strings that would
normally be typed on a command line by typing them somewhere else. If a
compilation system can derive more intelligent default settings for
switches by its automatic examination of its environment, that behavior is
allowed. For example, a compiler driver could freely notice that
vm_bigpages=1 in the kernel, and change the default to -bigpages=yes for
the cc command, provided, of course, that the change in defaults is
documented (see section 1, Philosophy).
2.2.6.11 Installation-provided switches
A compiler may freely pick up options from a system wide file that is
written by default at installation time. For example, suppose that the
compiler installation script examines the environment and creates:
/etc/fortran_system_defaults
debug_options: -oldstyle_debugging
linker_type: -multi_thread
machine_options: -architecture_level 3
memory_options: -bigpages
If a mechanism such as the above operates by default at installation time
with no installer intervention required (other than accepting the
defaults) then the flags would NOT be counted in the 4 flag limit. The key
points here are that the installer would not deviate from the defaults,
and ordinary compiler users are not required to be aware of the mechanism.
2.2.6.12 Switches to declare 64-bit mode
None of the SPEC CPU2000 benchmarks require a 64 bit address space, since
the target memory size is only 256MB. Nevertheless, SPEC would like to
encourage the submission of results using 64-bit compilers, because they
represent an important new addition of technology in the industry.
Therefore, a flag that puts a compiler into 64-bit mode is NOT counted
against the 4-flag limit.
During the development of CPU2000, SPEC has tested the benchmarks on 7
different 64-bit platforms and believes that most 64-bit portability
problems have been addressed. But it is possible, especially in the larger
benchmarks, that some 64-bit source code problems may remain. If further
problems are discovered, it would be permissible to specify 64-bit mode
for baseline with portability exceptions. The submitter should prepare a
statement of the problems found in 64-bit mode, including modules and
source line numbers.
For example, suppose that a tester selects 64-bit mode through the
compiler switch -lp64, and finds that benchmark 999.clumsy has incorrectly
assumed that pointers and ints are the same size. It would be acceptable
to submit results to SPEC using -lp64 for every benchmark except
999.clumsy, which would use -lp32. The presence of -lp64 would not count
against the 4-flag limit, nor would the use of -lp32 on 999.clumsy.
2.2.6.13 Cross-module optimization
Frequently, performance is improved via optimizations that work across
source modules, for example -ifo, -xcrossfile, or -IPA. Some compilers may
require the simultaneous presentation of all source files for inter-file
optimization, as in:
cc -ifo -o a.out file1.c file2.c
Other compilers may be able to do cross-module optimization even with
separate compilation, as in:
cc -ifo -c -o file1.o file1.c
cc -ifo -c -o file2.o file2.c
cc -ifo -o a.out file1.o file2.o
By default, the SPEC tools operate in the latter mode, but they can be
switched to the former through the config file option ONESTEP=yes.
Cross-module optimization is allowed in baseline, and is deemed to cost
exactly one switch under any of the following conditions:
* (a) The command line includes a switch, such as -ifo
* (b) The config file uses ONESTEP
* (c) both a switch and ONESTEP are used
2.2.6.14 Base build environment
The system environment must not be manipulated during a build of base. For
example, suppose that an environment variable called bigpages can be set
to yes or no, and the default is no. The tester must not change the choice
during the build of the base binaries. See section 2.0.5.
2.2.7 Safety and Standards Conformance
The requirements that optimizations are expected to be safe, and generate
correct code for a class of programs larger than the suite itself
(sections 2.2.1 and 1.2), are normally interpreted as requiring that the
system, as used in baseline, implement the language correctly. "The
language" is defined by the appropriate ANSI/ISO standard (C89,
Fortran-90, C++ 98).
The principle of standards conformance is not automatically applied,
because SPEC has historically allowed certain exceptions:
�1. Section 2.2.5 allows reordering of arithmetic operands.
�2. SPEC has not insisted on conformance to the C standard in the setting
of errno.
�3. SPEC has not dealt with (and does not intend to deal with) language
standard violations that are performance neutral for the CPU2000
suite.
�4. When a more recent standard modifies a requirement imposed by an
earlier standard, SPEC will also accept systems that adhere to the
more recent ANSI/ISO standard.
Otherwise, a deviation from the standard that is not performance neutral,
and gives the particular implementation a CPU2000 performance advantage
over standard-conforming implementations, is considered an indication that
the requirements about "safe" and "correct code" optimizations are
probably not met. Such a deviation can be a reason for SPEC to find a
result not rule-conforming.
If an optimization causes a SPEC benchmark to fail to validate, and if the
relevant portion of this benchmark's code is within the language standard,
the failure is taken as additional evidence that an optimization is not
safe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Running SPEC CPU2000
3.1 System Configuration
3.1.1 File Systems
SPEC requires the use of a of single file system to contain the directory
tree for the SPEC CPU2000 suite being run. SPEC allows any type of file
system (disk-based, memory-based, NFS, DFS, FAT, NTFS etc.) to be used.
The type of file system must be disclosed in reported results.
3.1.2 System State
The system state (multi-user, single-user, init level N) may be selected
by the tester. This state along with any changes in the default
configuration of daemon processes or system tuning parameters must be
documented in the notes section of the results disclosure. (For Windows
NT, system state is normally "Default"; a list of services that are shut
down should be provided, if any, e.g. networking service shut down)
3.2 Additional Rules for Running SPECrate
3.2.1 Number of copies in peak
For SPECint_rate2000 and SPECfp_rate2000 (peak), the tester is free to
choose the number of concurrent copies for each individual benchmark
independently of the other benchmarks.
The median value that is used must, for each benchmark, come from at least
three runs with the same number of copies. However, this number may be
different between benchmarks.
3.2.2 Number of copies in base
For SPECint_rate_base2000 and SPECfp_rate_base2000, the tester must select
a single value to use as the number of concurrent copies to be applied to
all benchmarks in the suite.
3.2.3 Single file system
The multiple concurrent copies of the benchmark must be executed using
data from different directories within the same file system. Each copy of
the test must have its own working directory, which is to contain all the
files needed for the actual execution of the benchmark, including input
files, and all output files when created. The output of each copy of the
benchmark must be validated to be the correct output.
Note: In CPU95, the benchmark binary itself was also copied, which
inhibited sharing of the text section across multiple users. For CPU2000,
the benchmark will be placed in the run directories only once. For
example, if swim is executed for six users, there would be six copies of
its data but only one copy of the swim executable in the run directories.
3.3 Continuous Run Requirement
All benchmark executions, including the validations steps, contributing to
a particular result page must occur continuously, that is, in one
execution of runspec.
3.4 Run-time environment
SPEC does not attempt to regulate the run-time environment for the
benchmarks, other than to require that the environment be:
* (a) set prior to runspec and consistent throughout the run,
* (b) fully described in the submission, and
* (c) in compliance with section 1, Philosophy.
For example, if each of the following:
run level: single-user
OS tuning: bigpages=yes, cpu_affinity=hard
file system: in memory
were set prior to the start of runspec, unchanged during the run,
described in the submission, and documented and supported by a vendor for
general use, then these options could be used in a CPU2000 submission.
Note: Item (a) is intended to forbid all means by which a tester might
change the environment. In particular, it is forbidden to change the
environment during the run using the config file hooks such as
monitor_pre_bench. Those hooks are intended for use when studying the
benchmarks, not for actual submissions.
3.5 Basepeak
If a result page will contain both peak and base CFP2000 results, a single
runspec invocation must have been used to run both the peak and base
executables for each benchmark and their validations. The tools will
ensure that the base executables are run first, followed by the peak
executables.
It is permitted to:
* Publish a base-only run as both base and peak. This is accomplished by
setting the config file flag basepeak=yes on a global basis. When the
SPEC tools determine that basepeak is set for an entire suite (that
is, for all the integer benchmarks or for all the floating point
benchmarks), the peak runs will be skipped and base results will be
reported as both base and peak.
* Force the same result to be used for both base and peak for one or
more individual benchmarks. This is accomplished by setting the config
file flag basepeak=yes for the desired benchmark(s). In this case, the
identical executable will be run for both base and peak, and a median
will be computed for both. The lesser median will then be reported for
both base and peak. The reason this feature exists is simply to
clarify for the reader that an identical executable was used in both
runs, and avoid confusion that might otherwise arise from run-to-run
variation.
Notes:
1. It is permitted but not required to compile in the same runspec
invocation as the execution. See rule 2.0.6 regarding cross compilation.
2. It is permitted but not required to run both the integer suite and the
floating point suite in a single invocation of runspec.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Results Disclosure
SPEC requires a full disclosure of results and configuration details
sufficient to reproduce the results. SPEC also requires that base results
be submitted whenever peak results are submitted. If peak results are
published outside of the SPEC web site (http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/) in a
publicly available medium, the tester must supply base results on request.
Publication of results under non-disclosure or company internal use or
company confidential are not "publicly" available.
A full disclosure of results will typically include:
* The components of the disclosure page, as generated by the SPEC tools.
* The tester's configuration file and any supplemental files needed to
build the executables used to generate the results.
* A flags definition disclosure.
A full disclosure of results should include sufficient information to
allow a result to be independently reproduced. If a tester is aware that a
configuration choice affects performance, then s/he should document it in
the full disclosure.
Note: this rule is not meant to imply that the tester must describe
irrelevant details or provide massively redundant information. For
example, if the SuperHero Model 1 comes with a write-through cache, and
the SuperHero Model 2 comes with a write-back cache, then specifying the
model number is sufficient, and no additional steps need to be taken to
document the cache protocol. But if the Model 3 is available with both
write-through and write-back caches, then a full disclosure must specify
which cache is used.
For information on how to submit a result to SPEC, contact the SPEC
office. Contact information is maintained at the SPEC web site,
http://www.spec.org/.
4.1 Rules regarding availability date and systems not yet shipped
If a tester submits results for a hardware or software configuration that
has not yet shipped, the submitting company must:
* have firm plans to make all components generally available within 3
months of the first public release of the result (either by the tester
or by SPEC, whichever is first)
* specify the availability dates that are planned
"Generally available" means that the product can be ordered by ordinary
customers, ships in a reasonable period after orders are submitted, and at
least one customer has received it. (The term "reasonable period" is not
specified in this paragraph, because it varies with the complexity of the
system. But it seems likely that a reasonable period for a $500 machine
would probably be measured in minutes; a reasonable period for a
$5,000,000 machine would probably be measured in months.)
It is acceptable to test larger configurations than customers are
currently ordering, provided that the larger configurations can be ordered
and the company is prepared to ship them. For example, if the SuperHero is
available in configurations of 1 to 1000 CPUs, but the largest order
received to date is for 128 CPUs, the tester would still be at liberty to
test a 1000 CPU configuration and submit the result.
A beta release of a compiler (or other software) can be used in a
submission, provided that the performance-related features of the compiler
are committed for inclusion in the final product. The tester should
practice due diligence to ensure that the tests do not use an uncommitted
prototype with no particular shipment plans. An example of due diligence
would be a memo from the compiler Project Leader which asserts that the
tester's version accurately represents the planned product, and that the
product will ship on date X.
The general availability date for software is either the committed
customer shipment date for the final product, or the date of the beta,
provided that all three of the following conditions are met:
�1. The beta is open to all interested parties without restriction. For
example, a compiler posted to the web for general users to download,
or a software subscription service for developers, would both be
acceptable.
�2. The beta is generally announced. A secret test version is not
acceptable.
�3. The final product has a committed date, which is specified in the
notes section.
If it is not possible to meet all three of these conditions, then the date
of the beta may not be used as the date of general availability. In that
case, use the date of the final product (which, then, must be within the 3
month window.)
As an example, suppose that in February 2000 a tester uses the generally
downloadable GoFast V5.2 beta which shipped in January 2000, but the final
product is committed to ship in July, 2000 (i.e. more than 3 months
later). It would be acceptable to say something like this:
sw_avail = Jan-2000
sw_compiler = GoFast C/C++ V5.2 (Beta 1)
notes900 = GoFast C/C++ V5.2 (final) will ship July, 2000
SPEC is aware that performance results published for systems that have not
yet shipped may sometimes be subject to change, for example when a
last-minute bugfix reduces the final performance. If something becomes
known that reduces performance by more than 1.75% on an overall metric
(for example, SPECfp_base2000 or SPECfp2000), SPEC requests that the
result be resubmitted.
4.2 Configuration Disclosure
The following sections describe the various elements that make up the
disclosure for the system and test configuration used to produce a given
test result. The SPEC tools used for the benchmark allow setting this
information in the configuration file:
4.2.1 System Identification
* System Manufacturer
* System Model Name
* SPEC license number
* Test Sponsor (Name,Location)
* Test Date (Month,Year)
* Hardware Availability Date
* Software Availability Date
4.2.2 Hardware Configuration
* CPU (Processor Name)
* CPU MHz: a numeric value expressed in megahertz. That is, do not say
"1.0 GHz", say "1000". The value here is to be the speed at which the
CPU is run, even if the chip itself is sold at a different clock rate.
That is, if you "over-clock" or "under-clock" the part, disclose here
the actual speed used.
* FPU
* Number of CPUs in System. Note that if your system has the ability to
turn off CPUs, for example through a firmware setting, then it is
acceptable to report "1" here if only 1 CPU is enabled on an SMP
system. The tester must exercise due diligence to ensure that the
disabled CPUs are truly disabled, and not silently giving help to the
result.
* Number of CPUs orderable
* Level 1 Cache (Size and Organization)
* Level 2 Cache (Size and Organization)
* Other Cache (Size and Organization)
* Memory (Size in MB/GB)
* Memory Configuration if there are end-user options that affect
performance, such as arrangement of memory modules, interleaving, and
access time.
* Disk (Size (MB/GB), Type (SCSI, Fast SCSI etc.)
* Other Hardware (Additional equipment added to improve performance,
special disk controller, NVRAM file system accelerator etc.)
4.2.3 Software Configuration
* Operating System (Name and Version)
* System State (e.g. Single User, Multi-user, Init 3, Default)
* File System Type
* Compilers:
* C Compiler (Name and Version)
* C++ Compiler (Name and Version)
* Fortran Compiler(s) (Name and Version)
* Pre-processors (Name and Version) if used
* Whether the benchmarks are automatically optimized to run in parallel
over multiple CPUs
* Other Software (Additional software added to improve performance)
4.2.4 Tuning Information
* Description of System Tuning (Includes any special OS parameters set,
changes to standard daemons (services for Windows NT))
* Base flags list
* Portability flags used for any benchmark
* Peak flags list for each benchmark
* Any additional notes such as listing any OSG approved alternate
sources or SPEC tool changes used.
SPEC is aware that sometimes the spelling of compiler switches, or even
the presence of compiler switches, changes between beta releases and final
releases. For example, suppose that during a compiler beta the tester
specifies:
f90 -fast -architecture_level 3 -unroll 16
but the tester knows that in the final release the architecture level will
be automatically set by -fast, and the compiler driver is going to change
to set the default unroll level to 16. In that case, it would be
permissible to mention only -fast in the notes section of the full
disclosure, and the above command line would be considered to have used
only one optimization switch out of the four allowed in base. The tester
is expected to exercise due diligence regarding such flag reporting, to
ensure that the disclosure correctly records the intended final product.
An example of due diligence would be a memo from the compiler Project
Leader which promises that the final product will spell the switches as
reported. SPEC may request that such a memo be generated and that a copy
be provided to SPEC.
4.3 Test Results Disclosure
The actual test results consist of the elapsed times and ratios for the
individual benchmarks and the overall SPEC metric produced by running the
benchmarks via the SPEC tools. The required use of the SPEC tools ensures
that the results generated are based on benchmarks built, run, and
validated according to the SPEC run rules. Below is a list of the
measurement components for each SPEC CPU2000 suite and metric:
4.3.1 Speed Metrics
o CINT2000 Speed Metrics:
SPECint_base2000 (Required Base result)
SPECint2000 (Optional Peak result)
o CFP2000 Speed Metrics:
SPECfp_base2000 (Required Base result)
SPECfp2000 (Optional Peak result)
The elapsed time in seconds for each of the benchmarks in the CINT2000 or
CFP2000 suite is given and the ratio to the reference machine (Sun Ultra
10) is calculated. The SPECint_base2000 and SPECfp_base2000 metrics are
calculated as a Geometric Mean of the individual ratios, where each ratio
is based on the median execution time from an odd number of runs, greater
than or equal to 3. All runs of a specific benchmark when using the SPEC
tools are required to have validated correctly.
The benchmark executables must have been built according to the rules
described in section 2 above.
4.3.2 Throughput Metrics
o CINT2000 Throughput Metrics:
SPECint_rate_base2000 (Required Base result)
SPECint_rate2000 (Optional Peak result)
o CFP2000 Throughput Metrics:
SPECfp_rate_base2000 (Required Base result)
SPECfp_rate2000 (Optional Peak result)
The throughput metrics are calculated based on the execution of the same
base and/or peak benchmark executables as for the speed metrics described
above. However, the test sponsor may select the number of concurrent
copies of each benchmark to be run. The same number of copies must be used
for all benchmarks in a base test. This is not true for the peak results
where the tester is free to select any combination of copies. The number
of copies selected is usually a function of the number of CPUs in the
system.
The "rate" calculated for each benchmark is a function of:
the number of copies run *
reference factor for the benchmark *
number of seconds in an hour /
elapsed time in seconds
which yields a rate in jobs/hour. The rate metrics are calculated as a
geometric mean from the individual SPECrates using the median result from
an odd number of runs, greater than or equal to 3 runs. As with the speed
metric, all copies of the benchmark during each run are expected to have
validated correctly.
It is permitted to use the SPEC tools to generate a 1-cpu rate disclosure
from a 1-cpu speed run. The reverse is not permitted.
4.4 Metric Selection
Submission of peak results are considered optional by SPEC, so the tester
may choose to submit only base results. Since by definition base results
adhere to all the rules that apply to peak results, the tester may choose
to refer to these results by either the base or peak metric names (e.g.
SPECint_base2000 or SPECint2000).
It is permitted to publish base-only results. Alternatively, the use of
the flag basepeak is permitted, as described in section 3.5.
4.5 Research and Academic usage of CPU2000
SPEC encourages use of the CPU2000 suites in academic and research
environments. It is understood that experiments in such environments may
be conducted in a less formal fashion than that demanded of hardware
vendors submitting to the SPEC web site. For example, a research
environment may use early prototype hardware that simply cannot be
expected to stay up for the length of time required to meet the Continuous
Run requirement (see section 3.3), or may use research compilers that are
unsupported and are not generally available (see section 1).
Nevertheless, SPEC would like to encourage researchers to obey as many of
the run rules as practical, even for informal research. SPEC respectfully
suggests that following the rules will improve the clarity,
reproducibility, and comparability of research results.
Where the rules cannot be followed, SPEC requires that the deviations from
the rules be clearly disclosed, and that any SPEC metrics (such as
SPECint2000) be clearly marked as estimated.
It is especially important to clearly distinguish results that do not
comply with the run rules when the areas of non-compliance are major, such
as not using the reference workload, or only being able to correctly
validate a subset of the benchmarks.
4.6 Required Disclosures
If a SPEC CPU2000 licensee publicly discloses a CPU2000 result (for
example in a press release, academic paper, magazine article, or public
web site), and does not clearly mark the result as an estimate, any SPEC
member may request that the rawfile(s) from the run(s) be sent to SPEC.
Such results must be made available to all interested members no later
than 10 working days after the request.
Any SPEC member may request that the result and its rawfile be reviewed by
the appropriate SPEC subcommittee. If the tester does not wish to have the
result posted on the SPEC web pages, the result will not be posted.
But when public claims are made about CPU2000 results, whether by vendors
or by academic researchers, SPEC reserves the right to take actions, for
example if it should occur that the rawfile is not made available, or
shows substantially different performance from the tester's claim, or
shows obvious violations of the run rules.
4.7 Fair Use
Consistency and fairness are guiding principles for SPEC. To help ensure
that these principles are sustained, SPEC has adopted guidelines for
public use of SPEC CPU2000 benchmark results.
When any organization or individual makes public claims using SPEC CPU2000
benchmark results, SPEC requires that:
[1] Reference is made to the SPEC trademark. Such reference may be
included in a notes section with other trademark references (see
http://www.spec.org/spec/trademarks.html for all SPEC trademarks
and service marks).
[2] The SPEC web site (http://www.spec.org) or a suitable sub-page is
noted as the source for more information.
[3] If competitive comparisons are made, the following additional rules
apply:
a. The results compared must use SPEC metrics. Performance
comparisons may be based upon any of the following metrics:
* The overall results: SPECint_base2000, SPECint2000,
SPECfp_base2000, SPECfp2000, SPECint_base_rate2000,
SPECint_rate2000, SPECfp_base_rate2000, SPECfp_rate2000
* Individual benchmark SPECratios
* Median run times of the individual benchmarks
b. The basis for comparison must be stated. Information from
result pages may be used to define a basis for comparing a
subset of systems, such as number of CPUs, operating system
version, cache size, memory size, compiler version, or
compiler optimizations used.
c. The source of the competitive data must be stated, and the
licensee (tester) must be identified or be clearly
identifiable from the source.
d. The date competitive data was retrieved must be stated.
e. All data used in comparisons must be publicly available
(from SPEC or elsewhere)
The following paragraph is an example of acceptable language when publicly
using SPEC benchmarks for competitive comparisons:
Example:
SPEC(R) and SPEC CPU2000(R) are registered trademarks of the Standard
Performance Evaluation Corporation. Competitive benchmark results stated
above reflect results published on www.spec.org as of Jan 12, 2001. The
comparison presented above is based on the best performing 4-cpu systems
currently shipping by Vendor 1, Vendor 2 and Vendor 3. For the latest SPEC
CPU2000 benchmark results, visit http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Run Rule Exceptions
If for some reason, the test sponsor cannot run the benchmarks as
specified in these rules, the test sponsor can seek SPEC OSG approval for
performance-neutral alternatives. No publication may be done without such
approval. OSG maintains a Policies and Procedures document that defines
the procedures for such exceptions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 1999-2001 Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation All
Rights Reserved