From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Pip Cet via "Emacs development discussions." Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: New "make benchmark" target Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2024 11:45:36 +0000 Message-ID: <87frm51jkr.fsf@protonmail.com> References: <87h679kftn.fsf@protonmail.com> <87msh0j12c.fsf@protonmail.com> <87zfkyfqia.fsf@protonmail.com> <875xnmf2qp.fsf@protonmail.com> <87y107g0xc.fsf@protonmail.com> Reply-To: Pip Cet Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="18707"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Stefan Kangas , Eli Zaretskii , =?utf-8?Q?Mattias_Engdeg=C3=A5rd?= , Paul Eggert , emacs-devel@gnu.org, =?utf-8?Q?Jo=C3=A3o_T=C3=A1vora?= To: Andrea Corallo Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Dec 30 13:00:27 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 1tSERd-0004jc-Rj for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 30 Dec 2024 13:00:25 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tSEQz-0006eH-TM; Mon, 30 Dec 2024 06:59:45 -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 1tSEDT-0003QY-4y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Dec 2024 06:45:47 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-40134.protonmail.ch ([185.70.40.134]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tSEDR-00084D-8r for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Dec 2024 06:45:46 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail3; t=1735559142; x=1735818342; bh=91gbUT2tttRpWncz24q7EZ57T1QbBdtCwxos20o8ORE=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID: Message-ID:BIMI-Selector:List-Unsubscribe:List-Unsubscribe-Post; b=jajf7FyquQxD/+o7/O1ZK4/jfv7ywnXgiFnyAehjgdW48kaCaGSU7ntywiRQ6PznZ twYgV0uy0Y14o08o8EG32IobINc3RsS6TzTaNutqrk5LjZkM0mMWtbJLhE4j8pNMQv YioBtH8oPr70+OkttdD8YrpSwAwWhR3m2vJruxaQziSA3mamolj1XdsGhvCD2YPPDk 7a6f8xQoVQbRMoDGPCskYNphdDelQ3mTR4GhZ4yVFvHCXbbtCRTskfxORsq1j3X2f2 jDVAJkaS7e8N24lbKyx9nFuDl7kujenq7d0rSBi94w2Deo5siFC92Cfq06nFtKBf0n BFGhfDv+FfbSQ== In-Reply-To: Feedback-ID: 112775352:user:proton X-Pm-Message-ID: 106aa95336380ae5558d2a1790c4a714cf4fe501 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.70.40.134; envelope-from=pipcet@protonmail.com; helo=mail-40134.protonmail.ch X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 30 Dec 2024 06:59:40 -0500 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:327407 Archived-At: "Andrea Corallo" writes: > Pip Cet writes: >> I'm convinced a "make benchmark" target is worth it. I also think that >> we should use the ERT framework, because benchmarks and pass-or-fail >> tests are quite similar. >> >> Maybe I'm missing an obvious solution here? > > 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, but I won't do so now because it might sound too much like an attack on elisp-benchmarks or its author. It seems likely that the consequence of my suggestion to add a make target to do something useful is that the make target is permanently reserved for something much less useful, blocking the way for future developments. Pip