On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 15:46:36 GMT, Sean Mullan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> It turns out this is a mistake. By having both this line and 48 with the >> same algorithm names, the benchmark runs them twice. Our benchmarks tend to >> be organized either with the main class as a baseline benchmark with >> subclasses for all other types, or an abstract base class with an empty >> @param tag and subclasses for each actual benchmark. >> `KeyAgreementBench.java` is done that way, and I personally like that >> approach better and changed this class to follow that model. Either way is >> just fine though. The important thing is that if you have parameters in the >> parent class, it should not match any parameter sets in the child classes or >> you just end up running the same benchmark twice. > > Thanks for fixing these comments on KEMBench. @haimaychao you can resolve > this and the other 2 KEMBench related conversations now. Done. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27614#discussion_r2599190737
