On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 8:40 AM Thomas Schwinge <tho...@codesourcery.com> wrote: > > Hi! > > On 2021-08-16T14:10:00-0600, Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 8/16/21 6:44 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > >> [...], to document the current behavior, I propose to > >> "Add more self-tests for 'hash_map' with Value type with non-trivial > >> constructor/destructor", see attached. OK to push to master branch? > >> (Also cherry-pick into release branches, eventually?) > > (Attached again, for easy reference.) > > > Adding more tests sounds like an excellent idea. I'm not sure about > > the idea of adding loopy selftests that iterate as many times as in > > the patch (looks like 1234 times two?) > > Correct, and I agree it's a sensible concern, generally. > > The current 1234 times two iterations is really arbitrary (should > document that in the test case), just so that we trigger a few hash table > expansions.
You could lower N_init (the default init is just 13!), even with just 128 inserted elements you'll trigger expansions to 31, 61 and 127 elements. > For 'selftest-c', we've got originally: > > -fself-test: 74775 pass(es) in 0.309299 seconds > -fself-test: 74775 pass(es) in 0.366041 seconds > -fself-test: 74775 pass(es) in 0.356663 seconds > -fself-test: 74775 pass(es) in 0.355009 seconds > -fself-test: 74775 pass(es) in 0.367575 seconds > -fself-test: 74775 pass(es) in 0.320406 seconds > > ..., and with my changes we've got: > > -fself-test: 94519 pass(es) in 0.327755 seconds > -fself-test: 94519 pass(es) in 0.369522 seconds > -fself-test: 94519 pass(es) in 0.355531 seconds > -fself-test: 94519 pass(es) in 0.362179 seconds > -fself-test: 94519 pass(es) in 0.363176 seconds > -fself-test: 94519 pass(es) in 0.318930 seconds > > So it really seems to be all in the noise? Yes. I think the test is OK but it's also reasonable to lower the '1234' times and add a comment as to the count should trigger hashtable expansions "a few times". Richard. > Yet: > > > Selftests run each time GCC > > builds (i.e., even during day to day development). It seems to me > > that it might be better to run such selftests only as part of > > the bootstrap process. > > I'd rather have thought about a '--param self-test-expensive' (or > similar), and then invoke the selftests via a new > 'gcc/testsuite/selftests/expensive.exp' (or similar). > > Or, adapt 'gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/plugin/expensive_selftests_plugin.c', > that is, invoke them via the GCC plugin mechanism, which also seems to be > easy enough? > > I don't have a strong opinion about where/when these tests get run, so > will happily take any suggestions. > > > Grüße > Thomas > > > ----------------- > Siemens Electronic Design Automation GmbH; Anschrift: Arnulfstraße 201, 80634 > München; Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung; Geschäftsführer: Thomas > Heurung, Frank Thürauf; Sitz der Gesellschaft: München; Registergericht > München, HRB 106955
