Bert, I don't remember if it was really necessary (it was probably useful
during development, now it's questionnable).
See if last inbox commit fits...


2014-07-24 20:04 GMT+02:00 Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de>:

> On 24.07.2014, at 19:32, Nicolas Cellier <
> nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It's reasonnably 259ms here with a homebrew cog (accelerated 32bits large
> int), core i7, win7...
> 27770ms with disabled plugin (default time out is set to 5000ms I think)
> Should we test if #LargeIntegers module is loaded in preamble?
>
>
> Is it really necessary to run 2500 iterations? Wouldn't 5 or so be enough?
>
> - Bert -
>
> 2014-07-24 16:03 GMT+02:00 Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de>:
>
>> Without a LargeIntegers plugin, this test is way too slow, it times out.
>> Even in Cog it takes almost 1 minute:
>>
>> "disable LargeIntegers plugin"
>> CompiledMethod allInstancesDo: [:cm |
>>         (cm primitive = 117 and: [(cm literalAt: 1) first =
>> #LargeIntegers])
>>                 ifTrue: [(cm literalAt: 1) at: 1 put:
>> #LargeIntegersDisabled]].
>> Smalltalk unloadModule: #LargeIntegers.
>>
>> "run test"
>> IntegerTest run: #testRaisedToModulo.
>>
>> "enable LargeIntegers plugin"
>> CompiledMethod allInstancesDo: [:cm |
>>         (cm primitive = 117 and: [(cm literalAt: 1) first =
>> #LargeIntegersDisabled])
>>                 ifTrue: [(cm literalAt: 1) at: 1 put: #LargeIntegers]].
>> Smalltalk unloadModule: #LargeIntegersDisabled.
>>
>>
>> - Bert -
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20140724/47ed9864/attachment.htm