On Aug 7, 2007, at 5:22 PM, Antti Koivisto wrote:
On 8/7/07, Mitz Pettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Aug 7, 2007, at 2:15 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- added performance test. With debug build on MBP this takes about
1.5s to
run.
* fast/block/basic/stress-shallow-nested-expected.txt: Added.
* fast/block/basic/stress-shallow-nested.html: Added.
(emphases mine). Nothing about that makes sense to me.
Are you objecting to testing performance regressions as part of the
test suite in general or particular method here? I'm open to
suggestions.
Hi Antti,
I do not understand the purpose of the test and how it is supposed to
serve that purpose (two of the reasons that I am baffled are that it
is my understanding that there are facilities to track performance
within fractions of a percent, and that I am not aware of other tests
that have use elapsed time internally as their success criterion).
It does not take long to run (300ms on release, 1.5s on debug MBP) so
I thought it would be appropriate for automatic test. There are
similar cases in the suite already. It needs to have non-zero
execution time so that O(n^2) nature of the bug shows up in testable
way.
On the computer I run the tests on, that single test alone takes
roughly as much time as all the other 229 tests in fast/block together.
_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
