> I have done the changes you want.
Thanks!
>> 36.5% run difference is bd. AFAICS, you haven't yet worked on
>> omitting 'warmup' iterations, right?
>
> I am planning to increase the iteration count by 10% and ignore the
> results for them.
You mean you are going to ignore the first 10%
Hi,
I have done the changes you want.
> 36.5% run difference is bd. AFAICS, you haven't yet worked on
> omitting 'warmup' iterations, right?
I am planning to increase the iteration count by 10% and ignore the results for
them. Trying to figure out the benchmarking program but actually
Here is my new bunch of remarks. In total, we are getting nearer to
meaningful results :-)
* The build process seems to be ok now, very good!
* After doing `make baseline` (and `make benchmark`) I see as the last
line
```
Processing 100%...\nBaseline created.
```
This `\n' looks
> about percentages, i runned the bench with -c 200 to have instant
> results for development process. here in the benchmark file
> attached, it made more acceptable result when increased the -c flag
> to 2000.
This is much better, thanks! However, there are still tests which
have a difference
Thank you Hin-Tak.
I have checked the makefile of demos and used libs and the includes as there.
(it was overriding the ccraw to cc)
about percentages, i runned the bench with -c 200 to have instant results for
development process. here in the benchmark file attached, it made more
acceptable
> * i modified benchmark program not to report 'time per op’ but
> rather 'cumulative time per N iterations'
> * changed the table design
> * sentence 'smaller values are better’ is present
> * embed a small CSS fragment at the top of the page
> * linked to the original baseline and benchmark
Cool. You should use "$(CC)" instead of "gcc" explicitly. Read the "implicit
variables" section in the GNU manual regarding what built-in variables are
there. Ideally you should use "$(LINK_CMD)" there too. That is defined towards
the top of the Makefile.
Good you have found "echo". You know
Thanks a lot, it works now.
I have updated the makefile like:
>
> # Build ftbench.o
> $(FTBENCH_OBJ): $(FTBENCH_SRC)
> @echo "Building ftbench object..." $(CC) $(INCLUDES) -c $< -o $@
> # Build ftbench
> $(FTBENCH_BIN): $(FTBENCH_OBJ)
> @echo "Linking ftbench..." $(LIBTOOL)
(Please keep the CC to freetype-devel)
libtool is also heavily in the GNU family, although mainly maintained by the
people at https://sourceware.org/ , I think. (ancient time people politics...)
. http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/ is also quite well-maintained.
You actually don't need to
The GNU Make manual is quite useful - and very well-written too. Go and
download it and sit down for an afternoon, away from the keyboard, read
sections of it. Good indexes and cross-references too.
I think you probably want to do "make -n", for make to just print out what it
will do, and just
On Wednesday, 12 July 2023 at 21:25:05 GMT+8, Ahmet Göksu
wrote:
> but i am stucked to binary.
$(FTBENCH_BIN): $(OBJ_DIR)/ftbench.$(SO)
$(LIBTOOL) --mode=link $(CC) $(subst /,$(f),$(LDFLAGS)) $^ -o $@ $(subst
/,$(f),$(FTLIB) $(EFENCE))
> i am trying to do it same way in the
Hi,
• i modified benchmark program not to report 'time per op’ but rather
'cumulative time per N iterations'
• changed the table design
• sentence 'smaller values are better’ is present
• embed a small CSS fragment at the top of the page
• linked to the original baseline and benchmark `.txt`
•
>> I thought you mean running make outside of the src/tools/ftbench
>> file (as how older version works) by non-sourcedir builds. if you
>> mean running from a seperate build directory, it is working now.
>
> Thanks, will check that soon.
Well, as it turns out, it doesn't exactly work as a
> I thought you mean running make outside of the src/tools/ftbench
> file (as how older version works) by non-sourcedir builds. if you
> mean running from a seperate build directory, it is working now.
Thanks, will check that soon.
>> * changed .txts to font name and extension
>> * added
Sorry, my bad to forget to add CC.
I thought you mean running make outside of the src/tools/ftbench file (as how
older version works) by non-sourcedir builds. if you mean running from a
seperate build directory, it is working now.
for benchmark.html (also in the attachments):
> quote_type
>
> I am sending this mail as a reminder of last updates that not is
> received feedback yet and current GSoC status.
Uh, oh, please don't send such e-mails to me privately! You should
always address the e-mail list.
Note that I'm still in semester-end mode, which means a lot of work
for the
Hello Ahmet,
> 1)You can see the benchmarking page in the attachments.
Nice! Please also make the HTML page display vital information about
the baseline and the benchmark, namely the corresponding git commit
IDs (maybe also displaying the commits' date and time).
>> Please give more
>>- Don't call `gcc` directly! You should rather use `$(CC)` (or
>> probably `$(CCexe)`, I'm not sure right now).
>
> In my understanding, $(CC) can be a cross compiler (e.g. building
> Win32 binary on Linux platform), but $(CCexe) is a native compiler
> to build "apinames".
>
> The
Hi,
- Don't call `gcc` directly! You should rather use `$(CC)` (or
probably `$(CCexe)`, I'm not sure right now).
In my understanding, $(CC) can be a cross compiler (e.g. building
Win32 binary on Linux platform), but $(CCexe) is a native compiler
to build "apinames".
The compiler to
Helo Ahmet,
> I want to inform about last update about ftbench.
Thanks!
> fonts are in their own directory but 5 fonts takes
> really much time.
Please give more details. What do you consider as 'really much time'?
You can adjust the number of loops used in `ftbench` with command-line
Hi,
I want to inform about last update about ftbench. Make is integrated with
baseline, benchmark and clean-benchmark targets. developed a python script that
creates a html file for benchmark too.
make baseline: compiles the ftbench.c file and creates a baseline in the
src/tools/ftbench/ dir.
21 matches
Mail list logo
