[issue15369] pybench and test.pystone poorly documented

Changes by Donald Stufft : -- pull_requests: +938 ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue15369] pybench and test.pystone poorly documented

STINNER Victor added the comment: I'm closing the issue again. Again, pybench moved to http://github.com/python/performance : please continue the discussion there if you consider that we still need to do something on pybench. FYI I reworked deeply pybench recently using the new perf 0.8 API.

[issue15369] pybench and test.pystone poorly documented

STINNER Victor added the comment: 2016-09-15 11:21 GMT+02:00 Marc-Andre Lemburg : > I think we are talking about different things here: calibration is > pybench means that you try to determine the overhead of the > outer loop and possible setup code that is needed to run

Re: [issue15369] pybench and test.pystone poorly documented

On 15.09.2016 11:11, STINNER Victor wrote: > > STINNER Victor added the comment: > > Hum, since the discussion restarted, I reopen the issue ... > > "Well, pybench is not just one benchmark, it's a whole collection of > benchmarks for various different aspects of the CPython VM and per concept

[issue15369] pybench and test.pystone poorly documented

STINNER Victor added the comment: Hum, since the discussion restarted, I reopen the issue ... "Well, pybench is not just one benchmark, it's a whole collection of benchmarks for various different aspects of the CPython VM and per concept it tries to calibrate itself per benchmark, since each

[issue15369] pybench and test.pystone poorly documented

Marc-Andre Lemburg added the comment: On 14.09.2016 15:20, STINNER Victor wrote: > > STINNER Victor added the comment: > >> I'd also like to request that you reword this dismissive line in the >> performance package's readme: (...) > > Please report issues of the performance module on its

[issue15369] pybench and test.pystone poorly documented

STINNER Victor added the comment: > I'd also like to request that you reword this dismissive line in the > performance package's readme: (...) Please report issues of the performance module on its own bug tracker: https://github.com/python/performance Can you please propose a new description?

[issue15369] pybench and test.pystone poorly documented

Marc-Andre Lemburg added the comment: Please add notes to the Tools/README pointing users to the performance suite. I'd also like to request that you reword this dismissive line in the performance package's readme: """ pybench - run the standard Python PyBench benchmark suite. This is

[issue15369] pybench and test.pystone poorly documented

STINNER Victor added the comment: We now have a good and stable benchmark suite: https://github.com/python/performance I removed pystone and pybench from Python 3.7. Please use performance instead of old and not reliable microbenchmarks like pybench or pystone. -- nosy: +haypo

[issue15369] pybench and test.pystone poorly documented

Roundup Robot added the comment: New changeset e03c1b6830fd by Victor Stinner in branch 'default': Remove pystone microbenchmark https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/e03c1b6830fd -- ___ Python tracker

[issue15369] pybench and test.pystone poorly documented

Roundup Robot added the comment: New changeset 08a0b75904c6 by Victor Stinner in branch 'default': Remove pybench microbenchmark https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/08a0b75904c6 -- nosy: +python-dev ___ Python tracker

[issue15369] pybench and test.pystone poorly documented

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: I don't really think they deserve documenting. pystones can arguably be a cheap and easy way of comparing performance of different systems *using the exact same Python interpreter*. It's the only point of running pystones. As for pybench, it probably had a

[issue15369] pybench and test.pystone poorly documented

Changes by Brett Cannon br...@python.org: -- nosy: -brett.cannon ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue15369 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list

[issue15369] pybench and test.pystone poorly documented

Brett Cannon br...@python.org added the comment: I disagree. They are outdated benchmarks and probably should either be removed or left undocumented. Proper testing of performance is with the Unladen Swallow benchmarks. -- nosy: +brett.cannon ___

[issue15369] pybench and test.pystone poorly documented

Marc-Andre Lemburg m...@egenix.com added the comment: Brett Cannon wrote: Brett Cannon br...@python.org added the comment: I disagree. They are outdated benchmarks and probably should either be removed or left undocumented. Proper testing of performance is with the Unladen Swallow

[issue15369] pybench and test.pystone poorly documented

Florent Xicluna florent.xicl...@gmail.com added the comment: Actually, I discovered python -m test.pystone during the talk of Mike Müller at EuroPython. http://is.gd/fasterpy Even if they are suboptimal for true benchmarks, they should probably be mentioned somewhere. In the same paragraph,

[issue15369] pybench and test.pystone poorly documented

Brett Cannon br...@python.org added the comment: The Unladen Swallow benchmarks are in no way specific to JITs; it is a set of thorough benchmarks for measuring the overall performance of a Python VM. As for speed.python.org, we know that it is currently not being updated as we are waiting

[issue15369] pybench and test.pystone poorly documented

New submission from Florent Xicluna florent.xicl...@gmail.com: The benchmarking tools pystones and pybench which are shipped with the Python standard distribution are not documented. The only information is in the what's-new for Python 2.5: