[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Proposal: pull benchmark library to the LLVM main repository

[Dominic Hamon via llvm-dev]

If you need any help integrating with lit, or any changes made to
benchmark, please let me know.

On Sun, 29 Jul 2018, 00:34 Chandler Carruth via cfe-dev, <
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> I'm happy to have this in the main LLVM repositiory.
>
> The version in the test suite should likely stay there because the test
> suite should be buildable w/o LLVM itself -- it is largely a distinct
> thing. We re-use lit, but not much else from LLVM, and we wouldn't want to
> install the benchmark library the way we do lit.
>
> One interesting point: we should have some way of running the in-tree
> benchmarks, likely with lit, much like we currently allow running unittests
> with lit. May be something you want to think about.
>
> On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 4:04 PM Dean Michael Berris via cfe-dev <
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> I’m a huge fan of having more benchmarks, and support this proposal.
>>
>> On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 at 2:16 am, Kirill Bobyrev via llvm-dev <
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>> As a part of upcoming new Clangd symbol index implementation, we would
>>> like to start support benchmarks of different Clangd pieces, such as index
>>> queries and code completion.
>>>
>>> There are already two projects in the LLVM tree using google/benchmark
>>> library while keeping its source code in-tree: libcxx
>>> (libcxx/utils/google-benchmark) and test-suite
>>> (test-suite/MicroBenchmarks/libs/benchmark-1.3.0). Storing another copy of
>>> benchmark library sources in clang-tools-extra would be unreasonable. We
>>> already have google test library in LLVM tree
>>> (llvm/utils/unittest/googletest) and it is used across all other
>>> subprojects, which looks to be very similar to the benchmark library in
>>> terms of reusing it across the projects. I would like to know if putting
>>> benchmark library along with googletest would be the best option. At the
>>> same time, benchmark library could be updated to the newer version (1.4.1)
>>> in the process of pulling it to the main LLVM repository.
>>>
>>> It would be great to get feedback on whether this proposal looks
>>> reasonable to the LLVM Community and having benchmark in the llvm/
>>> repository would be the best solution to the described problem.
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Kirill Bobyrev
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>
>> --
>> Dean
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-dev mailing list
>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180729/a7fad0e3/attachment.html>