Hi:
On 14 Mar 2011, at 09:36, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > Hi Stef. I would love this. Not only to see how successful an optimization > was, but also, how much overhead your solution has ;) Just in case you are talking to me, it is Stefan, not Stef... > Yes, please. Did you consider the repository PharoBenchmarks (even if the > package can be called SBench)? because it would be good to collect them > somewhere, and that seems a good enough place. No, PharoBenchmarks is not 'good enough'. I am not going to restrict my work to a particular Smalltalk, more than necessary. And to make that apparent I will insist on dropping the 'P' form the name. The benchmark framework should not be restricted to Pharo in any way. Benchmarks perhaps, but not the execution framework. > BTW, how do you compare the benchmarks from PBenchmark to the ones that are > in PharoBenchmarks ? PharoBenchmarks contains mostly microbenchmarks of all different kind. Should be relatively easy to adapt them to be used with the new framework. PBenchmark contains a small set of microbenchmarks, too. A bit better organized thought. The Whetstone benchmarks are already included in my RoarVM benchmarks and will definitely ported. > > Finally, I would also love to have such benchmarks run in each hudson build > to see wether each commit to pharo make it slower/faster. We already do that for the RoarVM, and the whole point is to enable you to do it too, within a common framework. What I want, is to be able to compare the results of the various VMs(and/or images) with each other. Best regards Stefan -- Stefan Marr Software Languages Lab Vrije Universiteit Brussel Pleinlaan 2 / B-1050 Brussels / Belgium http://soft.vub.ac.be/~smarr Phone: +32 2 629 2974 Fax: +32 2 629 3525
