On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> The browser is Firefox Nightly, and my fixes are on master now.
Ok, I can confirm that my test suite is running on master ok now. The
thing you saw may be firefox-specific: I'll have to try that later.
But at the very least, I'm not g
The browser is Firefox Nightly, and my fixes are on master now.
Sam
On Oct 26, 2012 1:15 PM, "Danny Yoo" wrote:
> > I ran the above, and it seemed to work well, until I got to the
> > "conform.rkt" test, when it spewed a *lot* of output like this:
> >
> > _62969@http://localhost:8371/eval:4681
>
> I ran the above, and it seemed to work well, until I got to the
> "conform.rkt" test, when it spewed a *lot* of output like this:
>
> _62969@http://localhost:8371/eval:4681
> _63082@http://localhost:8371/eval:2199
> _63901@http://localhost:8371/eval:6925
> _63932@http://localhost:8371/eval:6052
>
Generally, I look at the DrDr timing graphs and the run-length
overall. The first is good for discrete tests that do benchmarking
(such as tests/racket/benchmarks and tests/racket/stress) or are very
expensive, like the TR tests. The second is good when Matthew does
some VM-level optimization---for
Hi all,
I have a speculative change to match that I'd like to propose, but
before I do I'd like to make sure it has no negative performance impact.
How do people go about checking for performance regressions in core
racket collections? Is there a standard benchmark suite?
Regards,
Tony
__
5 matches
Mail list logo