GNU logs - #75359, boring messages

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

Subject: bug#75359: [scratch/elisp-benchmarks] test dependencies
Resent-From: Pip Cet <pipcet@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2025 16:38:03 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.75359.B.17360086594146 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
To: 75359 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2025 16:37:26 +0000
From: Pip Cet <pipcet@HIDDEN>
Message-ID: <878qrqfse2.fsf@HIDDEN>
Feedback-ID: 112775352:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.70.43.22; envelope-from=pipcet@HIDDEN;
 helo=mail-4322.protonmail.ch
X-Spam_score_int: -20
X-Spam_score: -2.1
X-Spam_bar: --
X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1,
 DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001,
 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001,
 SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
X-Spam_action: no action
X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/)

There are dependencies between emacs-lisp-benchmarks tests, meaning we
can't always modify one test without affecting others.  The ones I'm
aware of are:

- elb-bytecomp.el uses elb-smie.el as compilation input (in this
  context, elb-smie.el is a "resource", not source code).  If we
  modify elb-smie.el, elb-bytecomp.el results will change and become
  uncomparable.

- elb-scroll.el uses elb-smie.el as a prerequisite.  If we modify
  elb-smie.el, elb-scroll.el results will change and become
  uncomparable.  Furthermore, elb-scroll.el relies on elb-smie.el
  being compiled in the appropriate fashion by some external
  mechanism.  (I think the best solution here is to merge elb-smie.el
  and elb-scroll.el into a single file declaring several tests, using
  the established ERT test framework)

- bubble.el and bubble-no-cons.el both "provide" the same feature.
  I'm not sure whether this causes any acute problems, but it
  demonstrates that the inconsistent use of (provide) in the
  benchmarks is problematic.  If we ever load tests using Frequire, we
  will load the wrong files.  If we don't, provide shouldn't be
  necessary.

- xmenu.c is used as a resource; this is fine.  But we must make sure
  we never copy the "current" xmenu.c to the benchmarks directory
  without clearly indicating that the benchmark results will become
  uncomparable.

Message sent:

Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.505 (Entity 5.505)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
From: help-debbugs@HIDDEN (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Pip Cet <pipcet@HIDDEN>
Subject: bug#75359: Acknowledgement ([scratch/elisp-benchmarks] test
 dependencies)
Message-ID: <handler.75359.B.17360086594146.ack <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
References: <878qrqfse2.fsf@HIDDEN>
X-Gnu-PR-Message: ack 75359
X-Gnu-PR-Package: emacs
Reply-To: 75359 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2025 16:38:03 +0000

Thank you for filing a new bug report with debbugs.gnu.org.

This is an automatically generated reply to let you know your message
has been received.

Your message is being forwarded to the package maintainers and other
interested parties for their attention; they will reply in due course.

Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s):
 bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN

If you wish to submit further information on this problem, please
send it to 75359 <at> debbugs.gnu.org.

Please do not send mail to help-debbugs@HIDDEN unless you wish
to report a problem with the Bug-tracking system.

--=20
75359: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D75359
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs@HIDDEN with problems

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

Subject: bug#75359: [scratch/elisp-benchmarks] test dependencies
Resent-From: Andrea Corallo <acorallo@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2025 09:54:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.75359.B.17361572355735 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
To: 75359 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: pipcet@HIDDEN, monnier@HIDDEN
From: Andrea Corallo <acorallo@HIDDEN>
In-Reply-To: <878qrqfse2.fsf@HIDDEN> (Pip Cet via's message of "Sat,
 04 Jan 2025 16:37:26 +0000")
References: <878qrqfse2.fsf@HIDDEN>
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2025 04:53:45 -0500
Message-ID: <yp1msg45kuu.fsf@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: list
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>

Pip Cet via "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text
editors" <bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN> writes:

> There are dependencies between emacs-lisp-benchmarks tests, meaning we
> can't always modify one test without affecting others.  The ones I'm
> aware of are:
>
> - elb-bytecomp.el uses elb-smie.el as compilation input (in this
>   context, elb-smie.el is a "resource", not source code).  If we
>   modify elb-smie.el, elb-bytecomp.el results will change and become
>   uncomparable.

Shouldn't we just copy of elb-smie.el to resources?

> - elb-scroll.el uses elb-smie.el as a prerequisite.  If we modify
>   elb-smie.el, elb-scroll.el results will change and become
>   uncomparable.  Furthermore, elb-scroll.el relies on elb-smie.el
>   being compiled in the appropriate fashion by some external
>   mechanism.  (I think the best solution here is to merge elb-smie.el
>   and elb-scroll.el into a single file declaring several tests, using
>   the established ERT test framework)

I'm not sure these are real/serious bugs, different versions of
elisp-benchmarks don't guarantee to give comparable results (like every
benchmark).  Anyway adding Stefan who added this code.

> - bubble.el and bubble-no-cons.el both "provide" the same feature.
>   I'm not sure whether this causes any acute problems, but it
>   demonstrates that the inconsistent use of (provide) in the
>   benchmarks is problematic.  If we ever load tests using Frequire, we
>   will load the wrong files.  If we don't, provide shouldn't be
>   necessary.

AFAIU the provide is not used by elisp-benchmarks, anyway the typo is
now fixed.

> - xmenu.c is used as a resource; this is fine.  But we must make sure
>   we never copy the "current" xmenu.c to the benchmarks directory
>   without clearly indicating that the benchmark results will become
>   uncomparable.

Again, changes to the benchmark pertubating results should be tagged as
a new version, so will be fine to update xmenu.c if necessary as long as
we update elisp-benchmarks version.

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

Subject: bug#75359: [scratch/elisp-benchmarks] test dependencies
Resent-From: Andrea Corallo <acorallo@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2025 09:54:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.75359.B75359.17361572355742 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
To: 75359 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: pipcet@HIDDEN, monnier@HIDDEN
From: Andrea Corallo <acorallo@HIDDEN>
In-Reply-To: <878qrqfse2.fsf@HIDDEN> (Pip Cet via's message of "Sat,
 04 Jan 2025 16:37:26 +0000")
References: <878qrqfse2.fsf@HIDDEN>
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2025 04:53:45 -0500
Message-ID: <yp1msg45kuu.fsf@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: list
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>

Pip Cet via "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text
editors" <bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN> writes:

> There are dependencies between emacs-lisp-benchmarks tests, meaning we
> can't always modify one test without affecting others.  The ones I'm
> aware of are:
>
> - elb-bytecomp.el uses elb-smie.el as compilation input (in this
>   context, elb-smie.el is a "resource", not source code).  If we
>   modify elb-smie.el, elb-bytecomp.el results will change and become
>   uncomparable.

Shouldn't we just copy of elb-smie.el to resources?

> - elb-scroll.el uses elb-smie.el as a prerequisite.  If we modify
>   elb-smie.el, elb-scroll.el results will change and become
>   uncomparable.  Furthermore, elb-scroll.el relies on elb-smie.el
>   being compiled in the appropriate fashion by some external
>   mechanism.  (I think the best solution here is to merge elb-smie.el
>   and elb-scroll.el into a single file declaring several tests, using
>   the established ERT test framework)

I'm not sure these are real/serious bugs, different versions of
elisp-benchmarks don't guarantee to give comparable results (like every
benchmark).  Anyway adding Stefan who added this code.

> - bubble.el and bubble-no-cons.el both "provide" the same feature.
>   I'm not sure whether this causes any acute problems, but it
>   demonstrates that the inconsistent use of (provide) in the
>   benchmarks is problematic.  If we ever load tests using Frequire, we
>   will load the wrong files.  If we don't, provide shouldn't be
>   necessary.

AFAIU the provide is not used by elisp-benchmarks, anyway the typo is
now fixed.

> - xmenu.c is used as a resource; this is fine.  But we must make sure
>   we never copy the "current" xmenu.c to the benchmarks directory
>   without clearly indicating that the benchmark results will become
>   uncomparable.

Again, changes to the benchmark pertubating results should be tagged as
a new version, so will be fine to update xmenu.c if necessary as long as
we update elisp-benchmarks version.

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#75359: [scratch/elisp-benchmarks] test dependencies
Resent-From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2025 14:36:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.75359.B.173617415929750 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 75359
X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: 
To: Andrea Corallo <acorallo@HIDDEN>
Cc: pipcet@HIDDEN, 75359 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Debbugs-Original-Cc: Pip Cet <pipcet@HIDDEN>, "Pip Cet via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" <bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN>, 75359 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Received: via spool by submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B.173617415929750
          (code B ref -1); Mon, 06 Jan 2025 14:36:02 +0000
Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Jan 2025 14:35:59 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37469 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1tUoD0-0007jj-68
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 06 Jan 2025 09:35:58 -0500
Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:470:142::17]:47372)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <monnier@HIDDEN>)
 id 1tUoCx-0007jK-Gq
 for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 06 Jan 2025 09:35:56 -0500
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10])
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <monnier@HIDDEN>)
 id 1tUoCs-0002Nu-1V
 for bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN; Mon, 06 Jan 2025 09:35:50 -0500
Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50])
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <monnier@HIDDEN>)
 id 1tUoCn-0004Gu-Gf; Mon, 06 Jan 2025 09:35:47 -0500
Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 608E44410E5;
 Mon,  6 Jan 2025 09:35:42 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca;
 s=mail; t=1736174141;
 bh=V7RdlGDlA+L9ZUI5JbZXx393Mu92bYN7VDRWGUljfB4=;
 h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From;
 b=DRwZrS5ihhQiSDsI52DavIugFZwQPwZbGIVk1/RdYCf5mOD+fUEGS0P9qB5w5TLQ8
 NVVuqvNCudQcgOUqnEQHa6guNmeNh95L14b4lgVroMDruf7LvetzhnIiL39GMsLUnv
 PGjQmF5oh4KyfojPG4Y5TTATeVzb/U9jrlAcaups14/nDCs0S+++51LN/z1VfPkNx0
 GoVIxmRuKRngWQyaAH3vgUjTvhBMVE/DSEEeaeAG5Oo75nIRhT0X7FOMai0uAxTYZu
 EcInICmpzyu85r+6v3uJ5zCGNVK2NQv/okthPHbm859OvKcT9BPrFs8+VjK00vNbTN
 NhUdeqcdlg98A==
Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1])
 by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2244D441090;
 Mon,  6 Jan 2025 09:35:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: from pastel (69-165-162-104.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.165.162.104])
 by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E661312022C;
 Mon,  6 Jan 2025 09:35:40 -0500 (EST)
From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@HIDDEN>
In-Reply-To: <yp1msg45kuu.fsf@HIDDEN> (Andrea Corallo's message of
 "Mon, 06 Jan 2025 04:53:45 -0500")
Message-ID: <jwvcyh0ow65.fsf-monnier+emacs@HIDDEN>
References: <878qrqfse2.fsf@HIDDEN> <yp1msg45kuu.fsf@HIDDEN>
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2025 09:35:40 -0500
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-SPAM-INFO: Spam detection results:  0
 ALL_TRUSTED                -1 Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 DKIM_SIGNED               0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
 not necessarily valid
 DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
 DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's
 domain
 DKIM_VALID_EF -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from
 domain
X-SPAM-LEVEL: 
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50;
 envelope-from=monnier@HIDDEN; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca
X-Spam_score_int: -42
X-Spam_score: -4.3
X-Spam_bar: ----
X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1,
 DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3,
 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001,
 SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
X-Spam_action: no action
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-)

>> There are dependencies between emacs-lisp-benchmarks tests, meaning we
>> can't always modify one test without affecting others.  The ones I'm
>> aware of are:
>>
>> - elb-bytecomp.el uses elb-smie.el as compilation input (in this
>>   context, elb-smie.el is a "resource", not source code).  If we
>>   modify elb-smie.el, elb-bytecomp.el results will change and become
>>   uncomparable.
>
> Shouldn't we just copy of elb-smie.el to resources?

If so, we could just as well use some other file.  I used `elb-smie.el`
because it was a large enough file and it was already part of
`elisp-benchmarks`.

>> - elb-scroll.el uses elb-smie.el as a prerequisite.  If we modify
>>   elb-smie.el, elb-scroll.el results will change and become
>>   uncomparable.  Furthermore, elb-scroll.el relies on elb-smie.el
>>   being compiled in the appropriate fashion by some external
>>   mechanism.  (I think the best solution here is to merge elb-smie.el
>>   and elb-scroll.el into a single file declaring several tests, using
>>   the established ERT test framework)
>
> I'm not sure these are real/serious bugs, different versions of
> elisp-benchmarks don't guarantee to give comparable results (like every
> benchmark).

Agreed.
This said, merging `elb-smie.el` and `elb-scroll.el` would be fine.
Can't remember why I didn't do that from the start.

[ Not sure what ERT has to do with it, BTW.  ]

>> - bubble.el and bubble-no-cons.el both "provide" the same feature.
>>   I'm not sure whether this causes any acute problems, but it
>>   demonstrates that the inconsistent use of (provide) in the
>>   benchmarks is problematic.  If we ever load tests using Frequire, we
>>   will load the wrong files.  If we don't, provide shouldn't be
>>   necessary.
>
> AFAIU the provide is not used by elisp-benchmarks, anyway the typo is
> now fixed.

FWIW, these two files date back to the time where the benchmarks were
defined by their file (i.e. one file per benchmark), whereas nowadays
the benchmarks are defined by the `elb-*-entry` functions, so we should
probably merge those two files into one.

>> - xmenu.c is used as a resource; this is fine.  But we must make sure
>>   we never copy the "current" xmenu.c to the benchmarks directory
>>   without clearly indicating that the benchmark results will become
>>   uncomparable.
> Again, changes to the benchmark pertubating results should be tagged as
> a new version, so will be fine to update xmenu.c if necessary as long as
> we update elisp-benchmarks version.

Also I can't think of any reason why we'd want to "update" that file.
At least not until its use of the C language is considered too
antiquated/deprecated.


        Stefan

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#75359: [scratch/elisp-benchmarks] test dependencies
Resent-From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2025 14:36:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.75359.B75359.173617415129724 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 75359
X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: 
To: Andrea Corallo <acorallo@HIDDEN>
Cc: pipcet@HIDDEN, 75359 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Debbugs-Original-Cc: Pip Cet <pipcet@HIDDEN>, "Pip Cet via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" <bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN>, 75359 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Received: via spool by 75359-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B75359.173617415129724
          (code B ref 75359); Mon, 06 Jan 2025 14:36:02 +0000
Received: (at 75359) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Jan 2025 14:35:51 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37465 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1tUoCs-0007jM-Nr
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 06 Jan 2025 09:35:51 -0500
Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:40493)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <monnier@HIDDEN>)
 id 1tUoCq-0007j5-5a
 for 75359 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 06 Jan 2025 09:35:49 -0500
Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 608E44410E5;
 Mon,  6 Jan 2025 09:35:42 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca;
 s=mail; t=1736174141;
 bh=V7RdlGDlA+L9ZUI5JbZXx393Mu92bYN7VDRWGUljfB4=;
 h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From;
 b=DRwZrS5ihhQiSDsI52DavIugFZwQPwZbGIVk1/RdYCf5mOD+fUEGS0P9qB5w5TLQ8
 NVVuqvNCudQcgOUqnEQHa6guNmeNh95L14b4lgVroMDruf7LvetzhnIiL39GMsLUnv
 PGjQmF5oh4KyfojPG4Y5TTATeVzb/U9jrlAcaups14/nDCs0S+++51LN/z1VfPkNx0
 GoVIxmRuKRngWQyaAH3vgUjTvhBMVE/DSEEeaeAG5Oo75nIRhT0X7FOMai0uAxTYZu
 EcInICmpzyu85r+6v3uJ5zCGNVK2NQv/okthPHbm859OvKcT9BPrFs8+VjK00vNbTN
 NhUdeqcdlg98A==
Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1])
 by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2244D441090;
 Mon,  6 Jan 2025 09:35:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: from pastel (69-165-162-104.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.165.162.104])
 by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E661312022C;
 Mon,  6 Jan 2025 09:35:40 -0500 (EST)
From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@HIDDEN>
In-Reply-To: <yp1msg45kuu.fsf@HIDDEN> (Andrea Corallo's message of
 "Mon, 06 Jan 2025 04:53:45 -0500")
Message-ID: <jwvcyh0ow65.fsf-monnier+emacs@HIDDEN>
References: <878qrqfse2.fsf@HIDDEN> <yp1msg45kuu.fsf@HIDDEN>
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2025 09:35:40 -0500
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-SPAM-INFO: Spam detection results:  0
 ALL_TRUSTED                -1 Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 DKIM_SIGNED               0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
 not necessarily valid
 DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
 DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's
 domain
 DKIM_VALID_EF -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from
 domain
X-SPAM-LEVEL: 
X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---)

>> There are dependencies between emacs-lisp-benchmarks tests, meaning we
>> can't always modify one test without affecting others.  The ones I'm
>> aware of are:
>>
>> - elb-bytecomp.el uses elb-smie.el as compilation input (in this
>>   context, elb-smie.el is a "resource", not source code).  If we
>>   modify elb-smie.el, elb-bytecomp.el results will change and become
>>   uncomparable.
>
> Shouldn't we just copy of elb-smie.el to resources?

If so, we could just as well use some other file.  I used `elb-smie.el`
because it was a large enough file and it was already part of
`elisp-benchmarks`.

>> - elb-scroll.el uses elb-smie.el as a prerequisite.  If we modify
>>   elb-smie.el, elb-scroll.el results will change and become
>>   uncomparable.  Furthermore, elb-scroll.el relies on elb-smie.el
>>   being compiled in the appropriate fashion by some external
>>   mechanism.  (I think the best solution here is to merge elb-smie.el
>>   and elb-scroll.el into a single file declaring several tests, using
>>   the established ERT test framework)
>
> I'm not sure these are real/serious bugs, different versions of
> elisp-benchmarks don't guarantee to give comparable results (like every
> benchmark).

Agreed.
This said, merging `elb-smie.el` and `elb-scroll.el` would be fine.
Can't remember why I didn't do that from the start.

[ Not sure what ERT has to do with it, BTW.  ]

>> - bubble.el and bubble-no-cons.el both "provide" the same feature.
>>   I'm not sure whether this causes any acute problems, but it
>>   demonstrates that the inconsistent use of (provide) in the
>>   benchmarks is problematic.  If we ever load tests using Frequire, we
>>   will load the wrong files.  If we don't, provide shouldn't be
>>   necessary.
>
> AFAIU the provide is not used by elisp-benchmarks, anyway the typo is
> now fixed.

FWIW, these two files date back to the time where the benchmarks were
defined by their file (i.e. one file per benchmark), whereas nowadays
the benchmarks are defined by the `elb-*-entry` functions, so we should
probably merge those two files into one.

>> - xmenu.c is used as a resource; this is fine.  But we must make sure
>>   we never copy the "current" xmenu.c to the benchmarks directory
>>   without clearly indicating that the benchmark results will become
>>   uncomparable.
> Again, changes to the benchmark pertubating results should be tagged as
> a new version, so will be fine to update xmenu.c if necessary as long as
> we update elisp-benchmarks version.

Also I can't think of any reason why we'd want to "update" that file.
At least not until its use of the C language is considered too
antiquated/deprecated.


        Stefan

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#75359: [scratch/elisp-benchmarks] test dependencies
Resent-From: Pip Cet <pipcet@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2025 14:49:01 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.75359.B.173617489031986 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 75359
X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: 
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier@HIDDEN>
Cc: 75359 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, acorallo@HIDDEN
X-Debbugs-Original-Cc: "Pip Cet via \"Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors\"" <bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN>, Andrea Corallo <acorallo@HIDDEN>, 75359 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Received: via spool by submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B.173617489031986
          (code B ref -1); Mon, 06 Jan 2025 14:49:01 +0000
Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Jan 2025 14:48:10 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37499 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1tUoOo-0008Jp-Ba
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 06 Jan 2025 09:48:10 -0500
Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:470:142::17]:47844)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <pipcet@HIDDEN>)
 id 1tUoOm-0008J0-Eo
 for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 06 Jan 2025 09:48:09 -0500
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10])
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <pipcet@HIDDEN>)
 id 1tUoOc-000565-18
 for bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN; Mon, 06 Jan 2025 09:47:58 -0500
Received: from mail-40133.protonmail.ch ([185.70.40.133])
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <pipcet@HIDDEN>)
 id 1tUoOY-0007F1-M0
 for bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN; Mon, 06 Jan 2025 09:47:57 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
 s=protonmail3; t=1736174870; x=1736434070;
 bh=kNb9z0buGw0IyqS0NQt5Q+1uolCtMtDwPcySXMrobAQ=;
 h=Date:To:From:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:
 Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID:
 Message-ID:BIMI-Selector:List-Unsubscribe:List-Unsubscribe-Post;
 b=Yq6l9FB0F/xhrcWn2ilGJ3eoBDZrcGRwY7BwYBKjqNh/G49yn+6eGBRPifto/24OJ
 rIlPjxTQ6SvqIOYIYyAG4H6UqSlHXItpEl8P0let1xH83ZKSyxdAfOjr26CwMcd5V2
 UvaNDpnNJoSvmpqu7fKu1eGAFk+D2nBjoMuEoHGHbmZ3aCXDoluKgbSINFQp2QwIhy
 Fkmgf8Rnyh0eQuSTrvdNjpDS6aqs4zy3vMGJD06kt2o6ddxl+s0kFcGnWexElCjtJA
 mGwbqk0gHq2yPzmyi9LWayYMJOX88fni6kJcYnFJlsY8RIinFXXv8wrsKMLrrI901Q
 kWbqaJxvwebmw==
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2025 14:47:44 +0000
From: Pip Cet <pipcet@HIDDEN>
Message-ID: <878qrohucz.fsf@HIDDEN>
In-Reply-To: <jwvcyh0ow65.fsf-monnier+emacs@HIDDEN>
References: <878qrqfse2.fsf@HIDDEN>
 <yp1msg45kuu.fsf@HIDDEN> <jwvcyh0ow65.fsf-monnier+emacs@HIDDEN>
Feedback-ID: 112775352:user:proton
X-Pm-Message-ID: 116801a752e0cb0ed89e4a1c9c5fcad85ba5403f
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.70.40.133; envelope-from=pipcet@HIDDEN;
 helo=mail-40133.protonmail.ch
X-Spam_score_int: -20
X-Spam_score: -2.1
X-Spam_bar: --
X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1,
 DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001,
 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001,
 SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
X-Spam_action: no action
X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/)

"Stefan Monnier" <monnier@HIDDEN> writes:

> This said, merging `elb-smie.el` and `elb-scroll.el` would be fine.
> Can't remember why I didn't do that from the start.

Did that on my branch :-)

> [ Not sure what ERT has to do with it, BTW.  ]

See the "make benchmark" discussion, if you really want to :-)

Context: I have extended ERT so it has some minimal benchmarking
functionality, after investigating (twice) whether elisp-benchmarks.el
can't be made to do the job.  My conclusion was that that would take too
much time, we should use ERT and ditch elisp-benchmarks.el, modifying
the benchmarks instead.

Andrea asked for bug reports, I provided some, but my opinion is that
spending further time on elisp-benchmarks.el isn't productive, so I
won't.

Pip

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#75359: [scratch/elisp-benchmarks] test dependencies
Resent-From: Pip Cet <pipcet@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2025 14:49:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.75359.B75359.173617488231961 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 75359
X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: 
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier@HIDDEN>
Cc: 75359 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, acorallo@HIDDEN
X-Debbugs-Original-Cc: "Pip Cet via \"Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors\"" <bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN>, Andrea Corallo <acorallo@HIDDEN>, 75359 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Received: via spool by 75359-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B75359.173617488231961
          (code B ref 75359); Mon, 06 Jan 2025 14:49:02 +0000
Received: (at 75359) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Jan 2025 14:48:02 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37495 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1tUoOf-0008JR-QL
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 06 Jan 2025 09:48:02 -0500
Received: from mail-40134.protonmail.ch ([185.70.40.134]:42911)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <pipcet@HIDDEN>)
 id 1tUoOb-0008In-NU
 for 75359 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 06 Jan 2025 09:47:59 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
 s=protonmail3; t=1736174870; x=1736434070;
 bh=kNb9z0buGw0IyqS0NQt5Q+1uolCtMtDwPcySXMrobAQ=;
 h=Date:To:From:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:
 Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID:
 Message-ID:BIMI-Selector:List-Unsubscribe:List-Unsubscribe-Post;
 b=Yq6l9FB0F/xhrcWn2ilGJ3eoBDZrcGRwY7BwYBKjqNh/G49yn+6eGBRPifto/24OJ
 rIlPjxTQ6SvqIOYIYyAG4H6UqSlHXItpEl8P0let1xH83ZKSyxdAfOjr26CwMcd5V2
 UvaNDpnNJoSvmpqu7fKu1eGAFk+D2nBjoMuEoHGHbmZ3aCXDoluKgbSINFQp2QwIhy
 Fkmgf8Rnyh0eQuSTrvdNjpDS6aqs4zy3vMGJD06kt2o6ddxl+s0kFcGnWexElCjtJA
 mGwbqk0gHq2yPzmyi9LWayYMJOX88fni6kJcYnFJlsY8RIinFXXv8wrsKMLrrI901Q
 kWbqaJxvwebmw==
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2025 14:47:44 +0000
From: Pip Cet <pipcet@HIDDEN>
Message-ID: <878qrohucz.fsf@HIDDEN>
In-Reply-To: <jwvcyh0ow65.fsf-monnier+emacs@HIDDEN>
References: <878qrqfse2.fsf@HIDDEN>
 <yp1msg45kuu.fsf@HIDDEN> <jwvcyh0ow65.fsf-monnier+emacs@HIDDEN>
Feedback-ID: 112775352:user:proton
X-Pm-Message-ID: 116801a752e0cb0ed89e4a1c9c5fcad85ba5403f
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-)

"Stefan Monnier" <monnier@HIDDEN> writes:

> This said, merging `elb-smie.el` and `elb-scroll.el` would be fine.
> Can't remember why I didn't do that from the start.

Did that on my branch :-)

> [ Not sure what ERT has to do with it, BTW.  ]

See the "make benchmark" discussion, if you really want to :-)

Context: I have extended ERT so it has some minimal benchmarking
functionality, after investigating (twice) whether elisp-benchmarks.el
can't be made to do the job.  My conclusion was that that would take too
much time, we should use ERT and ditch elisp-benchmarks.el, modifying
the benchmarks instead.

Andrea asked for bug reports, I provided some, but my opinion is that
spending further time on elisp-benchmarks.el isn't productive, so I
won't.

Pip

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#75359: [scratch/elisp-benchmarks] test dependencies
Resent-From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2025 15:00:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.75359.B.17361755793940 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 75359
X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: 
To: Pip Cet <pipcet@HIDDEN>
Cc: 75359 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, acorallo@HIDDEN
X-Debbugs-Original-Cc: "Pip Cet via \"Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors\"" <bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN>, Andrea Corallo <acorallo@HIDDEN>, 75359 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Received: via spool by submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B.17361755793940
          (code B ref -1); Mon, 06 Jan 2025 15:00:02 +0000
Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Jan 2025 14:59:39 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39596 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1tUoZv-00011U-9J
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 06 Jan 2025 09:59:39 -0500
Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:470:142::17]:35518)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <monnier@HIDDEN>)
 id 1tUoZt-00011G-C3
 for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 06 Jan 2025 09:59:37 -0500
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10])
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <monnier@HIDDEN>)
 id 1tUoZn-0007JN-Vu
 for bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN; Mon, 06 Jan 2025 09:59:32 -0500
Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50])
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <monnier@HIDDEN>)
 id 1tUoZi-0000Zv-Ey; Mon, 06 Jan 2025 09:59:30 -0500
Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C9B2A4411A9;
 Mon,  6 Jan 2025 09:59:20 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca;
 s=mail; t=1736175559;
 bh=QXL4goG/y39wgr2NMb7iXbk6griwYT947TiOLDY4rbk=;
 h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From;
 b=DYItu7Bunwtw0ZAtC1Gk5yEt6UaQNuYR6ZaB10oAVUgs/LLtP9U/t0TVcbf+bJHcx
 lWRAFHzUz5uinNQBDn8m46hHXmZ34gK1YGV9yC1tZmcKFjwYiPOWNQG5QKUkyELgVe
 /MwL7M+QSU7AXhYtxKzBECsfAtqRCXXlnvzTnoVgPbPo2Mf+4EslpOwfAaje35FKyR
 a59HZfbu6fx3wIfwYaOE3t3QmAWMecmTr0zqp2kRAftlubdewYdUp4q/1aTHjHEAQh
 0ABojXDdQpWUn3kuFyrh44XtaDWUO6nBdQv8vyDIVxhW2AlPkiceY9/erQCiF5ARv8
 rHhoUYtaCHNHw==
Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1])
 by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id CD36A44118D;
 Mon,  6 Jan 2025 09:59:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from pastel (69-165-162-104.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.165.162.104])
 by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9D9E2120070;
 Mon,  6 Jan 2025 09:59:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@HIDDEN>
In-Reply-To: <878qrohucz.fsf@HIDDEN> (Pip Cet's message of "Mon, 06
 Jan 2025 14:47:44 +0000")
Message-ID: <jwvv7usngg3.fsf-monnier+emacs@HIDDEN>
References: <878qrqfse2.fsf@HIDDEN> <yp1msg45kuu.fsf@HIDDEN>
 <jwvcyh0ow65.fsf-monnier+emacs@HIDDEN>
 <878qrohucz.fsf@HIDDEN>
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2025 09:59:19 -0500
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-SPAM-INFO: Spam detection results:  0
 ALL_TRUSTED                -1 Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 DKIM_SIGNED               0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
 not necessarily valid
 DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
 DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's
 domain
 DKIM_VALID_EF -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from
 domain
X-SPAM-LEVEL: 
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50;
 envelope-from=monnier@HIDDEN; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca
X-Spam_score_int: -42
X-Spam_score: -4.3
X-Spam_bar: ----
X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1,
 DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3,
 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001,
 SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
X-Spam_action: no action
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-)

> Context: I have extended ERT so it has some minimal benchmarking
> functionality, after investigating (twice) whether elisp-benchmarks.el
> can't be made to do the job.  My conclusion was that that would take too
> much time, we should use ERT and ditch elisp-benchmarks.el, modifying
> the benchmarks instead.

I don't have any opinion on that.  The `elisp-benchmark.el` code itself
is very small/trivial, so rewriting it should be quite easy.

[ Then again, I can't think of any reason why any of it would take "much
  time", whether modifying `elisp-benchmarks.el`, or extending ERT, or
  writing it all from scratch.  So I'm probably missing something.  ]


        Stefan

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#75359: [scratch/elisp-benchmarks] test dependencies
Resent-From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2025 15:00:03 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.75359.B75359.17361755703918 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 75359
X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: 
To: Pip Cet <pipcet@HIDDEN>
Cc: 75359 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, acorallo@HIDDEN
X-Debbugs-Original-Cc: "Pip Cet via \"Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors\"" <bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN>, Andrea Corallo <acorallo@HIDDEN>, 75359 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Received: via spool by 75359-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B75359.17361755703918
          (code B ref 75359); Mon, 06 Jan 2025 15:00:03 +0000
Received: (at 75359) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Jan 2025 14:59:30 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39592 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1tUoZl-000117-VD
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 06 Jan 2025 09:59:30 -0500
Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:48225)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <monnier@HIDDEN>)
 id 1tUoZj-00010o-Au
 for 75359 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 06 Jan 2025 09:59:28 -0500
Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C9B2A4411A9;
 Mon,  6 Jan 2025 09:59:20 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca;
 s=mail; t=1736175559;
 bh=QXL4goG/y39wgr2NMb7iXbk6griwYT947TiOLDY4rbk=;
 h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From;
 b=DYItu7Bunwtw0ZAtC1Gk5yEt6UaQNuYR6ZaB10oAVUgs/LLtP9U/t0TVcbf+bJHcx
 lWRAFHzUz5uinNQBDn8m46hHXmZ34gK1YGV9yC1tZmcKFjwYiPOWNQG5QKUkyELgVe
 /MwL7M+QSU7AXhYtxKzBECsfAtqRCXXlnvzTnoVgPbPo2Mf+4EslpOwfAaje35FKyR
 a59HZfbu6fx3wIfwYaOE3t3QmAWMecmTr0zqp2kRAftlubdewYdUp4q/1aTHjHEAQh
 0ABojXDdQpWUn3kuFyrh44XtaDWUO6nBdQv8vyDIVxhW2AlPkiceY9/erQCiF5ARv8
 rHhoUYtaCHNHw==
Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1])
 by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id CD36A44118D;
 Mon,  6 Jan 2025 09:59:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from pastel (69-165-162-104.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.165.162.104])
 by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9D9E2120070;
 Mon,  6 Jan 2025 09:59:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@HIDDEN>
In-Reply-To: <878qrohucz.fsf@HIDDEN> (Pip Cet's message of "Mon, 06
 Jan 2025 14:47:44 +0000")
Message-ID: <jwvv7usngg3.fsf-monnier+emacs@HIDDEN>
References: <878qrqfse2.fsf@HIDDEN> <yp1msg45kuu.fsf@HIDDEN>
 <jwvcyh0ow65.fsf-monnier+emacs@HIDDEN>
 <878qrohucz.fsf@HIDDEN>
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2025 09:59:19 -0500
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-SPAM-INFO: Spam detection results:  0
 ALL_TRUSTED                -1 Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 DKIM_SIGNED               0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
 not necessarily valid
 DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
 DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's
 domain
 DKIM_VALID_EF -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from
 domain
X-SPAM-LEVEL: 
X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---)

> Context: I have extended ERT so it has some minimal benchmarking
> functionality, after investigating (twice) whether elisp-benchmarks.el
> can't be made to do the job.  My conclusion was that that would take too
> much time, we should use ERT and ditch elisp-benchmarks.el, modifying
> the benchmarks instead.

I don't have any opinion on that.  The `elisp-benchmark.el` code itself
is very small/trivial, so rewriting it should be quite easy.

[ Then again, I can't think of any reason why any of it would take "much
  time", whether modifying `elisp-benchmarks.el`, or extending ERT, or
  writing it all from scratch.  So I'm probably missing something.  ]


        Stefan

Last modified: Sun, 12 Jan 2025 05:45:02 UTC

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.