From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: New "make benchmark" target Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2024 17:21:12 +0200 Message-ID: <86msgdnqmv.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87h679kftn.fsf@protonmail.com> <87zfkyfqia.fsf@protonmail.com> <875xnmf2qp.fsf@protonmail.com> <87y107g0xc.fsf@protonmail.com> <87frm51jkr.fsf@protonmail.com> <861pxpp88q.fsf@gnu.org> <87frm5z06l.fsf@protonmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="5527"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: acorallo@gnu.org, stefankangas@gmail.com, mattiase@acm.org, eggert@cs.ucla.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com To: Pip Cet Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Dec 30 16:23:08 2024 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1tSHbo-0001I2-4t for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 30 Dec 2024 16:23:08 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tSHas-0008KY-I1; Mon, 30 Dec 2024 10:22:10 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tSHap-0008K6-Jx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Dec 2024 10:22:07 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tSHao-00018j-Cj; Mon, 30 Dec 2024 10:22:06 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=EnJYJDacEjDWiHnj6/f4eiwfYu+5QkhodQ+Xw3Pxxow=; b=KDH0XUVQ6QQ1ru/J+IUK dKKZZod3RtJRXQ7EzAKYB+suPXR50N90ZFAxtBTFtfjpnfvzKQreSmwUVsdYbrSUn/C70B6ij2fl9 iQvVdajq7hysRL9I4ixqs1hF+j4f/Hi2+CF6tDn1/2K38IRPh1x+9pBK0/rXNjd6ctwpJ6PXscFzp 0U1UNwwEhP+FG974ry3rXTBATeutFa9y9+50lZW1usERkMaIDFAURaB18sE09JQEkuhexfcrG0lqX 4N4BETACnQbmT4wJeTC8LLb3aMPbscc6y4gxh67eUy1fmkADQpUGNGwAWx7VH0ACsbk5gbJjSnEsx JWS/7BMU9fTjBg==; In-Reply-To: <87frm5z06l.fsf@protonmail.com> (message from Pip Cet on Mon, 30 Dec 2024 15:00:29 +0000) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:327440 Archived-At: > Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2024 15:00:29 +0000 > From: Pip Cet > Cc: acorallo@gnu.org, stefankangas@gmail.com, mattiase@acm.org, eggert@cs.ucla.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com > > "Eli Zaretskii" writes: > > >> Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2024 11:45:36 +0000 > >> From: Pip Cet > >> Cc: Stefan Kangas , Eli Zaretskii > >> , Mattias Engdegård , Paul Eggert > >> , emacs-devel@gnu.org, João Távora > >> > >> > >> "Andrea Corallo" writes: > >> > >> > I'd personally drop the requirement of using ERT as a framework for > >> > benchmarks, I'd just move elisp-benchmarks code in emacs core and add > >> > the target. > >> > >> Well, as is obvious from the quoted paragraph, I disagree. I've stated > >> why in the thread; if someone wants a summary, I can provide one > > > > Can you point to the message where you explained your rationale for > > using ERT for this? I've scanned the discussion, but couldn't find > > such a message. > > The best I can find is this: > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2024-12/msg00595.html Thanks, but AFAICT this just says that you intended to use/extend ERT to run this benchmark suite, but doesn't explain why you think using ERT would be an advantage worthy of keeping. > I can try to provide a more detailed/structured rationale if that's > helpful. (Is it, though? Reusing someone's code in a way which reduces > their user base and might cause them more work isn't something we should > do lightly.) I'm not sure I follow. Andrea suggests to move elisp-benchmarks into the repository, and add a target to the test/ Makefile to run it. AFAIU he suggested that because it should be less work, not more. Why do you think it is wrong to do the (AFAIU) simple change that Andrea proposed? The reason I'm asking is because I think we want this suite to be part of our test, but don't necessarily want the addition of the benchmarks to the test suite be a large job that complicates the benchmarks and the test suite alike.