We have few good, solid benchmarks that stress a single part of the codegen or libraries. These are necessary to be able to be able to easily spot perfomance regressions, as well as have a good quantitative data about Rust's performance.
Benchmarks should cover both space and time characteristics, and should use the built-in bench runner where possible. Some ideas:
- Allocating an object with a destructor
- Allocating a @-ptr
- Destructuring an enum/struct/tuple/tuple struct/vector
- Pattern matching
- Numeric manipulation (should be covered fairly well by the current shootout stuff, but should be extracted)
- Data structure manipulation (vec benchmarks etc, similar to what
core-map and friends do)
- String manipulation
- Method call
- Trait object method call
- Task communication (like
pingpong does) with the various primitives (one-shots, streams, protocols)
- Logging
An important note: these benchmarks aren't intended for comparison to other languages (although they could be useful for that in the future), but for tracking the performance of Rust.
We have few good, solid benchmarks that stress a single part of the codegen or libraries. These are necessary to be able to be able to easily spot perfomance regressions, as well as have a good quantitative data about Rust's performance.
Benchmarks should cover both space and time characteristics, and should use the built-in bench runner where possible. Some ideas:
core-mapand friends do)pingpongdoes) with the various primitives (one-shots, streams, protocols)An important note: these benchmarks aren't intended for comparison to other languages (although they could be useful for that in the future), but for tracking the performance of Rust.