Skip to content
New issue

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

InferenceBenchmarks: allow benchmark against Compiler as the stdlib #325

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 14, 2024

Conversation

aviatesk
Copy link
Member

This is especially useful for optimizing the compiler’s implementation while using Revise in a local environment.

This is especially useful for optimizing the compiler’s implementation
while using Revise in a local environment.
@aviatesk aviatesk requested a review from Keno November 13, 2024 08:55
@aviatesk aviatesk merged commit 8ea74c9 into master Nov 14, 2024
3 of 4 checks passed
@aviatesk aviatesk deleted the avi/compiler-split branch November 14, 2024 06:46
@@ -18,7 +18,15 @@ module InferenceBenchmarks
# managed by the runtime system: this allows us to profile Julia-level inference reliably
# without being influenced by previous trials or some native execution

@static if VERSION ≥ v"1.12.0-DEV.1581"
if Base.REFLECTION_COMPILER[] === nothing
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm a little concerned about this one. This is a runtime variable, but used in a compile-time context. It probably works fine for now, but we may want to do something like eval things on the fly when requested.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

An eval-based implementation seems more correct. We need to be cautious about whether it affects benchmarks though. Currently the benchmark modules in BaseBenchmarks.jl are not precompiled, and since these benchmarks are essentially runtime-only, this approach should be fine for now.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants