I’m running from the test suite, with GCC 4.9
It was slow because on my dev machine I compile without optimization (my bad).
With optimizations:
- without testing cmap_next_position() : 8.6s
- if we always test also cmap_next_position() always (like you suggested): 18.8s
So I’m posting v2 with
There's a couple of reasons that test-cmap can be slow.
First, if you run it without a numerical argument, it iterates 100
times. That takes a long time, and it's only meant for cases where
you're doing actual development and want high confidence. The
testsuite gives it an argument of 1, so that
Thanks,
The reason I didn’t do that in the first place is that test-cmap is already
taking 55s to run on my machine, and I thought that adding other code to
check_cmap()
might increase runtime significantly (we call check_cmap() a lot and
cmap_next_position()
is slow).
After applying your sugge
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 09:57:55PM -0700, Daniele Di Proietto wrote:
> cmap_next_position() didn't update the node pointer while iterating through a
> list of nodes with the same hash.
> This commit fixes the bug and improve test-cmap to detect it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniele Di Proietto
Good cat
cmap_next_position() didn't update the node pointer while iterating through a
list of nodes with the same hash.
This commit fixes the bug and improve test-cmap to detect it.
Signed-off-by: Daniele Di Proietto
---
lib/cmap.c| 2 +-
tests/test-cmap.c | 31 +++
