We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
I'm interested in the data, or rather the model of performance that might best fit the data. Here is one I did earlier: https://shape-of-code.com/2019/01/29/modeling-visual-studio-c-compile-times/
Is detailed data available to be shared?
How would you expect performance to depend on function count and depth?
For small values I would expect it to be linear.
run-count ought to be at least 10, to handle noise effects.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
All the data is printed to standard out.
Ideally linearly on function count and depth. For some compiler implementations this is not the case, though.
Are you saying we should force truncate it to 10?
Sorry, something went wrong.
By data availability, I meant results from previous runs made by yourself or others.
I guess quadratic is the obvious candidate for performance, when a simple implementation is used.
At least, i.e., at least 10.
No branches or pull requests
I'm interested in the data, or rather the model of performance that might best fit the data.
Here is one I did earlier: https://shape-of-code.com/2019/01/29/modeling-visual-studio-c-compile-times/
Is detailed data available to be shared?
How would you expect performance to depend on function count and depth?
For small values I would expect it to be linear.
run-count ought to be at least 10, to handle noise effects.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: