lebedev.ri added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/benchmarks/IndexBenchmark.cpp:81 +// Same for the next "benchmark". +// FIXME(kbobyrev): Should this be separated into the BackingMemorySize +// (underlying SymbolSlab size) and Symbol Index (MemIndex/Dex) overhead? ---------------- kbobyrev wrote: > ilya-biryukov wrote: > > Given the trick we use for display, how are we going to show **two** memory > > uses? > As discussed offline, this hack also relies on the fact that benchmark has a > dynamic nature of determining iterations count. Giving a large number of > "time units" to the counter results in a single iteration. > > I've tried to understand whether I could use any flags for [[ > https://github.com/google/benchmark#user-defined-counters | User-Defined > Counter ]] that could just divide the number of iterations by > `IterationTime`, but I could find one that would do exactly what is needed > here. Also, I didn't find any way to manually set the iteration count. > divide the number of iterations by IterationTime And more unsolicited advices: [[ https://github.com/google/benchmark/blob/1b44120cd16712f3b5decd95dc8ff2813574b273/include/benchmark/benchmark.h#L366-L368 | `kIsIterationInvariantRate` ]], but it is master-only, not in any release. For now, do ``` State.counters["kIsIterationInvariantRate"] = benchmark::Counter( state.iterations(), benchmark::Counter::Flags::kIsRate); ``` If understood the question right. > Also, I didn't find any way to manually set the iteration count. [[ https://github.com/google/benchmark/blob/1b44120cd16712f3b5decd95dc8ff2813574b273/include/benchmark/benchmark.h#L853-L859 | `benchmark::Benchmark::Iterations()` ]] https://reviews.llvm.org/D52047 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
