On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 02:03:46AM +0000, Paul Brook wrote: > > I was hoping that having it there when people did test runs would change > > the psychology; instead of having already checked in a patch, which > > we're then looking to revert, we'd be making ourselves aware of > > performance impact before check-in, even for patches that we don't > > expect to have performance impact. (For major new optimizations, we > > already expect people to do some benchmarking.) > > I'd be surprised if you could get meaningful performance numbers on anything > other than an dedicated performance testing machine. There are simply too > many external factors on a typical development machine[*]. > > I'm not saying we shouldn't try to do some sort of performance testing. Just > that even if we find a reasonable benchmark then adding it to "make check" > probably isn't going to give much useful data.
I think the only _feasible_ way to do this would be with cycle counting i.e. simulators, and the _usefulness_ of the available simulators for performance on today's hardware is probably too limited. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC
