ioeric added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52300#1241754, @kbobyrev wrote:
> Also, I'll refine https://reviews.llvm.org/D52047 a little bit and I believe > that is should be way easier to understand performance + memory consumption > once we have these benchmarks in. Both @ioeric and @ilya-biryukov expressed > their concern with regard to the memory consumption "benchmark" and suggested > a separate binary. While this seems fine to me, I think it's important to > keep performance + memory tracking infrastructure easy to use (in this sense > scattering different metrics across multiple binaries makes it less > accessible and probably introduce some code duplication) and therefore using > this "trick" is OK to me, but I don't have a strong opinion about this. What > do you think, @sammccall? FWIW, I think the "trick" for memory benchmark is fine. I just think we should add proper output to make the trick clear to users, as suggested in the patch comment. https://reviews.llvm.org/D52300 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
