SPECFP95 comparison: 2.95.3 vs 3.0-20010525 on SPARC

[Joe Buck]

> On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 03:12:32PM -0400, dewar@gnat.com wrote:
> > OK, but the post to this list just now did not meet that requirement
> > as far as I can see.
> 
> Eh.  True, but one could also argue it wasn't being "published"
> either.  This list is more of a forum for developers than a 
> vehicle for marketriods.

Since that's debatable (the mailing list is archived on gcc.gnu.org after
all, and some trade journalists do read the list and might decide to turn a
post into an article), it's probably best to be safe and make sure that
any posted reports follow the rules.