On 8/17/21 12:40 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Hi!
On 2021-08-16T14:10:00-0600, Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/16/21 6:44 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
[...], to document the current behavior, I propose to
"Add more self-tests for 'hash_map' with Value type with non-trivial
constructor/destructor", see attached. OK to push to master branch?
(Also cherry-pick into release branches, eventually?)
(Attached again, for easy reference.)
Adding more tests sounds like an excellent idea. I'm not sure about
the idea of adding loopy selftests that iterate as many times as in
the patch (looks like 1234 times two?)
Correct, and I agree it's a sensible concern, generally.
The current 1234 times two iterations is really arbitrary (should
document that in the test case), just so that we trigger a few hash table
expansions.
For 'selftest-c', we've got originally:
-fself-test: 74775 pass(es) in 0.309299 seconds
-fself-test: 74775 pass(es) in 0.366041 seconds
-fself-test: 74775 pass(es) in 0.356663 seconds
-fself-test: 74775 pass(es) in 0.355009 seconds
-fself-test: 74775 pass(es) in 0.367575 seconds
-fself-test: 74775 pass(es) in 0.320406 seconds
..., and with my changes we've got:
-fself-test: 94519 pass(es) in 0.327755 seconds
-fself-test: 94519 pass(es) in 0.369522 seconds
-fself-test: 94519 pass(es) in 0.355531 seconds
-fself-test: 94519 pass(es) in 0.362179 seconds
-fself-test: 94519 pass(es) in 0.363176 seconds
-fself-test: 94519 pass(es) in 0.318930 seconds
So it really seems to be all in the noise?
Yet:
Selftests run each time GCC
builds (i.e., even during day to day development). It seems to me
that it might be better to run such selftests only as part of
the bootstrap process.
I'd rather have thought about a '--param self-test-expensive' (or
similar), and then invoke the selftests via a new
'gcc/testsuite/selftests/expensive.exp' (or similar).
Or, adapt 'gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/plugin/expensive_selftests_plugin.c',
that is, invoke them via the GCC plugin mechanism, which also seems to be
easy enough?
I don't have a strong opinion about where/when these tests get run, so
will happily take any suggestions.
I think the right design is to move all these basic building blocks
(at a minimum, all containers, but ultimately even higher level
general-purpose APIs) into a standalone library with its own unit
tests run independently of GCC.
I'm fine with adding these tests if no one else is concerned about
the overhead, especially with a lower number of iterations like
Richard suggests (as long as it still exercises the expansion,
of course).
Thanks
Martin
Grüße
Thomas
-----------------
Siemens Electronic Design Automation GmbH; Anschrift: Arnulfstraße 201, 80634
München; Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung; Geschäftsführer: Thomas
Heurung, Frank Thürauf; Sitz der Gesellschaft: München; Registergericht
München, HRB 106955
