Re: enhancing perfcheck - Proof of concept & proposals

Hi,

On Tue, 2014-10-28 at 07:51 +0100, Laurent Godard wrote:
> Hi Matus,
>
> Thanks a lot for your detailled response
>
> I'm actually in holidays with family and will be back next week; I hope 
> then to be able to continue this work (but feel free to start it !)

enjoy :-)

> Regarding output results, the approach i took was to first gather all 
> the results in the csv file
> Then post-processing it in a spreadsheet (say, randomly, calc) and use 
> standard filters to isolate the tests

Ah, I see. Nice, I would not be able to come up with something like that :-)

> > > - set IS_PERFCHECK
> >
> > this would be set all the time (not needed)
> > make perfcheck would just run tests under callgrind, where it makes sense
>
> ok but i still do not catch how the beast would know if callgrind is 
> running or not. how would startImplemntation and endImplementation 
> behave if callgrind is not running (case of normal tests)

callgrind runs if you use 'make perfcheck' or set gb_CppunitTest_VALGRINDTOOL
explicitely.
If callgrind does not run, startImplementation should do nothing.

So, I've done
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=e4e7f9d88e05fa610a72245c40f4e47f85db61ff

Hopefully it will help us.
Example test: https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/#/c/11296/

Would be nice to rebase your patches and merge them.

Thanks,
Matus