On Aug 7, 2007, at 7:22 AM, 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.
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.
The main question for me would be whether this will fail if the
performance bug was somehow reintroduced. Would it take so long that
the watchdog timer would think the test had hanged and kick in?
- Maciej
_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
