protect names against binary name#11378
Conversation
e418e35 to
81ec735
Compare
Merging this PR will degrade performance by 16.92%
|
| Mode | Benchmark | BASE |
HEAD |
Efficiency | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ❌ | Memory | cat_default[10000] |
67.2 KB | 80.9 KB | -16.92% |
| ❌ | Simulation | cat_default[10000] |
188.6 µs | 198.8 µs | -5.14% |
| ❌ | Simulation | cat_default[10000000] |
86.1 µs | 89.5 µs | -3.86% |
Comparing oech3:test-name (66b0639) with main (60d448b)2
Footnotes
-
46 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports. ↩
-
No successful run was found on
main(13fb3be) during the generation of this report, so 60d448b was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩
Too large perf drop |
|
I have no idea why is this bad for CPU perf. |
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
i guess a change in the compiler version or codspeed ? |
|
It did not happen at other PR. I guess this changes compiler's optimization. |
c3364a5 to
6a622d6
Compare
|
I think we need to |
1b1e2aa to
79ef90b
Compare
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
|
GNU testsuite comparison: |
|
GNU testsuite comparison: |
|
GNU testsuite comparison: |
930ebe5 to
e52fcd9
Compare
|
GNU testsuite comparison: |
|
GNU testsuite comparison: |
|
GNU testsuite comparison: |
|
Too many CI failure |
|
GNU testsuite comparison: |
c9bd97b to
8dd1e69
Compare
|
|
|
GNU testsuite comparison: |
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
|
GNU testsuite comparison: |
|
GNU testsuite comparison: |
|
Is this OK to merge? |
|
GNU testsuite comparison: |
Co-authored-by: Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@debian.org>
Closes #11343 . Should reduce binary size too