Do you actually have persistent bench results?  That sounds
interesting.  Please, do tell.

I"m curious how you would be able to keep a consistent baseline with
improving hardware and VM's and even image performance improvements.

On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Ben Coman <btc at openinworld.com> wrote:
> Chris Muller wrote:
>
> 0 tinyBenchmarks    '1,708,090,075 bytecodes/sec; 199,734,789 sends/sec'
>
>
> Nice.
>
>
>
> [] bench    '131,000,000 per second.'
>
>
> Hmm, this mostly measures the millisecondClockValue primitive.
>
> How about we replace this
>
>         count := 0.
>         endTime := Time millisecondClockValue + 5000.
>         startTime := Time millisecondClockValue.
>         [ Time millisecondClockValue > endTime ] whileFalse: [ self value.
> count := count + 1 ].
>         endTime := Time millisecondClockValue.
>
> with
>
>         count := 0.
>         repeat := true.
>         [(Delay forSeconds: 5) wait. repeat := false] forkAt: Processor
> activePriority + 1.
>         startTime := Time millisecondClockValue.
>         [ self value.  count := count + 1. repeat ] whileTrue.
>         endTime := Time millisecondClockValue.
>
> which on my machine makes it go from
>
>  '70,800,000 per second.'
>
> to
>
>  '168,000,000 per second.'
>
>
> Wow, I didn't realize millisecondClockValue had that much of an
> impact!  Yours is defiintely less-intrusive, we should update #bench..
>
>
>
>
>
> Would you leave #bench as it is to avoid invalidating comparisons with
> previous results, and add some kind of #bench2 ?
> cheers -ben