lebedev.ri added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52300#1241776, @ioeric wrote:
> 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. It seems to be omitted in README.md, but you are probably after `benchmark::State::SetLabel()` <https://github.com/google/benchmark/blob/1b44120cd16712f3b5decd95dc8ff2813574b273/include/benchmark/benchmark.h#L596-L612> https://reviews.llvm.org/D52300 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
