I'd say a lot of the trouble comes from the fact that you're using the
automated test framework for something that isn't an automated test.
You'll probably find that easiest thing to do is stick something like this
in your Makefile.PL
sub MY::postamble {
return 'EOM';
bench: pure_all
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 05:26:07AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd say a lot of the trouble comes from the fact that you're using the
automated test framework for something that isn't an automated test.
But it could be. It would be nice to have a test like make sure the
hand optimized
On Thursday 04 December 2003 21:51, Michael G Schwern wrote:
But it could be. It would be nice to have a test like make sure the
hand optimized version is faster than the unoptimized version or make sure
the XS version is faster than the Perl version.
Yeah - this would probably be useful.
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 10:33:14PM +, Fergal Daly wrote:
Another useful sort of test would be make sure this function runs in less
than N perlmips time where a perlmip is some unit of CPU time calibrated
relative to the current hardware. So a pmip on machine A would be
roughly twice
* Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-12-04T16:51:03]
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 05:26:07AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd say a lot of the trouble comes from the fact that you're using the
automated test framework for something that isn't an automated test.
But it could be. It
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 11:30:47PM +, Fergal Daly wrote:
I'm not sure about that 25%. Say the pmip calibrator doesn't fit in the CPU
cache on any machine, then if the tested algorithm fits in the CPU cache on
one machine but not on another then there will be a huge difference in the
