-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add array::map
benchmarks
#107915
Add array::map
benchmarks
#107915
Conversation
(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
Hey! It looks like you've submitted a new PR for the library teams! If this PR contains changes to any Examples of
|
aa29a9c
to
cbd1b81
Compare
Hm. I'm not opposed to these, but we may get better mileage out of codegen tests which can assert that LLVM did the right thing. Not sure if we have those today. @bors r+ |
I have some codegen tests in my PR to make |
Rollup of 7 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#107654 (reword descriptions of the deprecated int modules) - rust-lang#107915 (Add `array::map` benchmarks) - rust-lang#107961 (Avoid copy-pasting the `ilog` panic string in a bunch of places) - rust-lang#107962 (Add a doc note about why `Chain` is not `ExactSizeIterator`) - rust-lang#107966 (Update browser-ui-test version to 0.14.3) - rust-lang#107970 (Hermit: Remove floor symbol) - rust-lang#107973 (Fix unintentional UB in SIMD tests) Failed merges: r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
I think it may be worth having both, as I think codegen is most practical and understandable of whether the generated code is performant or not, but in the end we'd still ultimately want to see wall clock time improvements. |
Since there were no previous benchmarks for
array::map
, and it is known to have mediocre/poor performance, add some simple benchmarks. These benchmarks vary the length of the array and size of each item.