Remove Stepanov test

From-SVN: r43202

2 files changed, 4 insertions, 350 deletions

diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog b/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
index 8b84b45..ceffbae 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,7 @@
+2001-06-11  Bernd Schmidt  <bernds@redhat.com>
+
+	* g++.old-deja/g++.other/stepanov_v1p2.C: Remove.
+
 2001-06-11  Richard Henderson  <rth@redhat.com>
 
 	* g++.old-deja/g++.law/code-gen5.C: Don't send raw pointers to assert.
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.other/stepanov_v1p2.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.other/stepanov_v1p2.C
deleted file mode 100644
index 910629d..0000000
--- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.other/stepanov_v1p2.C
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,350 +0,0 @@
-// Special g++ Options: -O2
-
-/* KAI's version of Stepanov Benchmark -- Version 1.2
-
-   Version 1.2 -- removed some special code for GNU systems that
-		  GNU complained about without -O
-
-To verify how efficiently C++ (and in particular STL) is compiled by
-the present day compilers, I composed a little benchmark. It outputs
-13 numbers. In the ideal world these numbers should be the same. In
-the real world, however, ...
-
-The final number printed by the benchmark is a geometric mean of the
-performance degradation factors of individual tests. It claims to
-represent the factor by which you will be punished by your
-compiler if you attempt to use C++ data abstraction features. I call
-this number "Abstraction Penalty."
-
-As with any benchmark it is hard to prove such a claim; some people
-told me that it does not represent typical C++ usage. It is, however,
-a noteworthy fact that majority of the people who so object are
-responsible for C++ compilers with disproportionatly large Abstraction
-Penalty.
-
-The structure of the benchmark is really quite simple. It adds 2000
-doubles in an array 25000 times. It does it in 13 different ways that
-introduce more and more abstract ways of doing it:
-
-0 - uses simple Fortran-like for loop.
-1 - 12 use STL style accumulate template function with plus function object.
-1, 3, 5, 7 ,9, 11 use doubles.
-2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 use Double - double wrapped in a class.
-1, 2 - use regular pointers.
-3, 4 - use pointers wrapped in a class.
-5, 6 - use pointers wrapped in a reverse-iterator adaptor.
-7, 8 - use wrapped pointers wrapped in a reverse-iterator adaptor.
-9, 10 - use pointers wrapped in a reverse-iterator adaptor wrapped in a
-  reverse-iterator adaptor.
-11, 12 - use wrapped pointers wrapped in a reverse-iterator adaptor wrapped
-  in a reverse-iterator adaptor.
-
-All the operators on Double and different pointer-like classes are
-declared inline. The only thing that is really measured is the penalty
-for data abstraction. While templates are used, they do not cause any
-performance degradation. They are used only to simplify the code.
-
-Since many of you are interested in the C++ performance issues, I
-decided to post the benchmark here. I would appreciate if you run it
-and (if possible) send me the results indicating what you have
-compiled it with (CPU, clock rate, compiler, optimization level). It
-is self contained and written so that it could be compiled even with
-those compilers that at present cannot compile STL at all.
-
-It takes a fairly long time to run - on a really slow machine it might
-take a full hour. (For those of you who want to run it faster - give
-it a command line argument that specifies the number of
-iterations. The default is 25000, but it gives an accurate predictions
-even with 500 or a thousand.)
-
-
-Alex Stepanov
-stepanov@mti.sgi.com
-
-*/
-
-
-#include <stddef.h>
-#include <stdio.h>
-#include <time.h>
-#include <math.h>
-#include <stdlib.h>
-
-template <class T>
-inline int operator!=(const T& x, const T& y) {
-  return !(x == y);
-}
-
-struct Double {
-  double value;
-  Double() {}
-  Double(const double& x) : value(x) {}
-  operator double() { return value; }
-};
-
-inline Double operator+(const Double& x, const Double& y) {
-  return Double(x.value + y.value);
-}
-
-struct double_pointer {
-    double* current;
-    double_pointer() {}
-    double_pointer(double* x) : current(x) {}
-    double& operator*() const { return *current; }
-    double_pointer& operator++() {
-	++current;
-	return *this;
-    }
-    double_pointer operator++(int) {
-	double_pointer tmp = *this;
-	++*this;
-	return tmp;
-    }
-    double_pointer& operator--() {
-	--current;
-	return *this;
-    }
-    double_pointer operator--(int) {
-	double_pointer tmp = *this;
-	--*this;
-	return tmp;
-    }
-};
-
-
-inline int operator==(const double_pointer& x,
-		      const double_pointer& y) {
-    return x.current == y.current;
-}
-
-struct Double_pointer {
-    Double* current;
-    Double_pointer() {}
-    Double_pointer(Double* x) : current(x) {}
-    Double& operator*() const { return *current; }
-    Double_pointer& operator++() {
-	++current;
-	return *this;
-    }
-    Double_pointer operator++(int) {
-	Double_pointer tmp = *this;
-	++*this;
-	return tmp;
-    }
-    Double_pointer& operator--() {
-	--current;
-	return *this;
-    }
-    Double_pointer operator--(int) {
-	Double_pointer tmp = *this;
-	--*this;
-	return tmp;
-    }
-};
-
-
-inline int operator==(const Double_pointer& x,
-		       const Double_pointer& y) {
-    return x.current == y.current;
-}
-
-template <class RandomAccessIterator, class T>
-struct reverse_iterator {
-    RandomAccessIterator current;
-    reverse_iterator(RandomAccessIterator x) : current(x) {}
-    T& operator*() const {
-      RandomAccessIterator tmp = current;
-      return *(--tmp);
-    }
-    reverse_iterator<RandomAccessIterator, T>& operator++() {
-	--current;
-	return *this;
-    }
-    reverse_iterator<RandomAccessIterator, T> operator++(int) {
-      reverse_iterator<RandomAccessIterator, T> tmp = *this;
-	++*this;
-	return tmp;
-    }
-    reverse_iterator<RandomAccessIterator, T>& operator--() {
-	++current;
-	return *this;
-    }
-    reverse_iterator<RandomAccessIterator, T> operator--(int) {
-      reverse_iterator<RandomAccessIterator, T> tmp = *this;
-	--*this;
-	return tmp;
-    }
-};
-
-template <class RandomAccessIterator, class T>
-inline int operator==(const reverse_iterator<RandomAccessIterator, T>& x,
-		      const reverse_iterator<RandomAccessIterator, T>& y) {
-    return x.current == y.current;
-}
-
-struct {
-  double operator()(const double& x, const double& y) {return x + y; }
-  Double operator()(const Double& x, const Double& y) {return x + y; }
-} plus;
-
-
-template <class Iterator, class Number>
-Number accumulate(Iterator first, Iterator last, Number result) {
-  while (first != last) result =  plus(result, *first++);
-  return result;
-}
-
-int iterations = 25000;
-#define SIZE 2000
-
-int current_test = 0;
-
-double result_times[20];
-
-void summarize() {
-  printf("\ntest      absolute   additions      ratio with\n");
-  printf("number    time       per second     test0\n\n");
-  int i;
-  double millions = (double(SIZE) * iterations)/1000000.;
-  for (i = 0; i < current_test; ++i)
-    {
-      printf("%2i       %5.2fsec    %5.2fM         %.2f\n",
-	     i,
-	     result_times[i],
-	     millions/result_times[i],
-	     result_times[i]/result_times[0]);
-      // To make the benchmark into a test-case we check that no
-      // version has a severe abstraction penalty.  There will always
-      // be measurement errors, and we don't presently avoid all
-      // abstraction penalty.  As the compiler improves, 1.2 should
-      // gradually be replaced with a smaller value.
-      if (result_times[i]/result_times[0] > 1.2)
-	abort ();
-    }
-  double gmean_times = 0.;
-  double total_absolute_times = 0.;  // sam added 12/05/95
-  double gmean_rate = 0.;
-  double gmean_ratio = 0.;
-  for (i = 0; i < current_test; ++i) {
-    total_absolute_times += result_times[i];  // sam added 12/05/95
-    gmean_times += log(result_times[i]);
-    gmean_rate  += log(millions/result_times[i]);
-    gmean_ratio += log(result_times[i]/result_times[0]);
-  } 
-  printf("mean:    %5.2fsec    %5.2fM         %.2f\n",
-	 exp(gmean_times/current_test),
-	 exp(gmean_rate/current_test),
-	 exp(gmean_ratio/current_test));
-  printf("\nTotal absolute time: %.2f sec\n", total_absolute_times);  // sam added 12/05/95
-  printf("\nAbstraction Penalty: %.2f\n\n", exp(gmean_ratio/current_test));
-}
-
-clock_t start_time, end_time;
-
-inline void start_timer() { start_time = clock(); }
-
-inline double timer() {
-  end_time = clock();
-  return (end_time - start_time)/double(CLOCKS_PER_SEC);
-}
-
-const double init_value = 3.;
-
-
-
-double data[SIZE];
-
-Double Data[SIZE];
-
-inline void check(double result) {
-  if (result != SIZE * init_value) printf("test %i failed\n", current_test);
-}
-
-void test0(double* first, double* last) {
-  start_timer();
-  for(int i = 0; i < iterations; ++i) {
-    double result = 0;
-    for (int n = 0; n < last - first; ++n) result += first[n];
-    check(result);
-  }
-  result_times[current_test++] = timer();
-}
-
-
-template <class Iterator, class T>
-void test(Iterator first, Iterator last, T zero) {
-  int i;
-  start_timer();
-  for(i = 0; i < iterations; ++i)
-    check(double(accumulate(first, last, zero)));
-  result_times[current_test++] = timer();
-}
-
-template <class Iterator, class T>
-void fill(Iterator first, Iterator last, T value) {
-  while (first != last) *first++ = value;
-}
-
-
-double d = 0.;
-Double D = 0.;
-typedef double* dp;
-dp dpb = data;
-dp dpe = data + SIZE;
-typedef Double* Dp;
-Dp Dpb = Data;
-Dp Dpe = Data + SIZE;
-typedef double_pointer dP;
-dP dPb(dpb);
-dP dPe(dpe);
-typedef Double_pointer DP;
-DP DPb(Dpb);
-DP DPe(Dpe);
-typedef reverse_iterator<dp, double> rdp;
-rdp rdpb(dpe);
-rdp rdpe(dpb);
-typedef reverse_iterator<Dp, Double> rDp;
-rDp rDpb(Dpe);
-rDp rDpe(Dpb);
-typedef reverse_iterator<dP, double> rdP;
-rdP rdPb(dPe);
-rdP rdPe(dPb);
-typedef reverse_iterator<DP, Double> rDP;
-rDP rDPb(DPe);
-rDP rDPe(DPb);
-typedef reverse_iterator<rdp, double> rrdp;
-rrdp rrdpb(rdpe);
-rrdp rrdpe(rdpb);
-typedef reverse_iterator<rDp, Double> rrDp;
-rrDp rrDpb(rDpe);
-rrDp rrDpe(rDpb);
-typedef reverse_iterator<rdP, double> rrdP;
-rrdP rrdPb(rdPe);
-rrdP rrdPe(rdPb);
-typedef reverse_iterator<rDP, Double> rrDP;
-rrDP rrDPb(rDPe);
-rrDP rrDPe(rDPb);
-
-int main(int argv, char** argc) {
-  if (argv > 1) iterations = atoi(argc[1]);
-  fill(dpb, dpe, double(init_value));
-  fill(Dpb, Dpe, Double(init_value));
-  test0(dpb, dpe);
-  test(dpb, dpe, d);
-  test(Dpb, Dpe, D);
-  test(dPb, dPe, d);
-  test(DPb, DPe, D);
-  test(rdpb, rdpe, d);
-  test(rDpb, rDpe, D);
-  test(rdPb, rdPe, d);
-  test(rDPb, rDPe, D);
-  test(rrdpb, rrdpe, d);
-  test(rrDpb, rrDpe, D);
-  test(rrdPb, rrdPe, d);
-  test(rrDPb, rrDPe, D);
-  summarize();
-  return 0;
-}
-
-
-