[MAGEEC] [BEEBS] So what _do_ the E's stand for...
Kerstin Eder
Kerstin.Eder at bristol.ac.uk
Sat Aug 2 01:43:59 BST 2014
Dear All,
I'm in favour of "Bristol/Embecosm Embedded Benchmark Suite", as, like
Simon states below, energy is "only" one way it can be used.
Best wishes,
Kerstin
On 01/08/2014 21:51, Simon Cook wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> (I may have this history slightly wrong, but this is the order of
> events I recall.)
>
> I believe originally it was Bristol Energy Efficiency Benchmark Suite
> (note README.md still refers to this), but then to add Embecosm to the
> name, and to avoid having BEEEBS as the name morphed into
> Bristol/Embecosm Energy Efficiency Benchmark Suite, where the B stands
> for both Bristol and Embecosm.
>
> Over time, we wanted to emphasise Embedded as the target, so
> Efficiency was dropped in favour of Embedded (and the two Es were
> swapped). I think Energy may have been dropped at some point, as
> whilst the original benchmark suite was used for energy, we didn't
> want it to be useful exclusively for this purpose, so we end up with
> Bristol/Embecosm Embedded Benchmark Suite.
>
> For consistency, I would choose "Bristol/Embecosm Embedded Benchmark
> Suite", as in my view that's what describes it best. It's a benchmark
> suite targetting embedded systems, energy is one way we're using it,
> but it's not the only way it can be used. I realise that's different
> to the name chosen in the meeting, but thats just my view on the name.
>
> Of course, if the consensus is for "Bristol/Embecosm Energy Benchmark
> Suite", we should go for that. Any other thoughts anyone?
>
> Thanks,
> Simon
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 8:17 PM, Andrew Burgess
> <andrew.burgess at embecosm.com <mailto:andrew.burgess at embecosm.com>> wrote:
>
> I was going to standardise the expanded name used throughout the BEEBS
> code and just wanted to double check that there's agreement on what
> the actual name should be.
>
> Currently on the wiki here for example:
> http://mageec.org/2014/06/20/introducing-beebs-benchmarking-for-energy/
> We go with "Bristol/Embecosm Embedded Energy Benchmark Suite", which
> seems to have too many E's.
>
> In the code we currently have:
>
> 1 Bristol/Embecosm Benchmark Suite
> 4 Bristol/Embecosm Embedded Benchmark Suite
> 100 Bristol/Embecosm Embedded Energy Benchmark Suite
> 277 Bristol/Embecosm Energy Efficiency Benchmark
> 2 Bristol Energy Efficiency Benchmark Suite
>
> In the last meeting, according to the notes:
> http://mageec.org/wiki/Meeting_21_July_2014
> we agreed on "Bristol/Embecosm Energy Benchmark Suite"
>
> but I thought we'd agreed "Bristol/Embecosm Embedded Benchmark Suite".
>
> Would anyone like to pick one? If I don't hear anything else I'll go
> with "Bristol/Embecosm Energy Benchmark Suite" as that's what the
> minutes say we agreed on.
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew
>
> _______________________________________________
> mageec mailing list
> mageec at mageec.org <mailto:mageec at mageec.org>
> http://mageec.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mageec
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mageec mailing list
> mageec at mageec.org
> http://mageec.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mageec
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mageec.org/pipermail/mageec/attachments/20140802/b6350d82/attachment.html>
More information about the mageec
mailing list