-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 49
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Benchmark AddConstraint function #168
Benchmark AddConstraint function #168
Conversation
Current benchmark:
|
Corrected benchmarks for AddTemplate/Simple:
|
Fixes #152 |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #168 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 44.92% 44.92%
=======================================
Files 59 59
Lines 2776 2776
=======================================
Hits 1247 1247
Misses 1286 1286
Partials 243 243
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
f43254d
to
f050413
Compare
We didn't expect this to be problematic, but it's nice to have a benchmark for this as we do intend to make some changes to what happens when Constraints are added. Fix "ModuleSimple" so it actually compiles. I was originally against having the error check in the benchmark since it's slightly slower, but (1) the performance difference is negligible and (2) we want to be sure the CT is actually being compiled, so it's worth the minuscule performance cost. Signed-off-by: Will Beason <willbeason@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Will Beason <willbeason@google.com>
c54516a
to
dce8923
Compare
We didn't expect this to be problematic, but it's nice to have a
benchmark for this as we do intend to make some changes to what happens
when Constraints are added.
Fix "ModuleSimple" so it actually compiles. I was originally against
having the error check in the benchmark since it's slightly slower, but
(1) the performance difference is negligible and (2) we want to be sure
the CT is actually being compiled, so it's worth the minuscule
performance cost.
Signed-off-by: Will Beason willbeason@google.com