[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,

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