Add a --setup option for the use-case of wanting to do one-off setup
before a set of benchmarks, not the once-per-test setup that --prepare
does. This is useful for the cases noted in the updated documentation.
Per the feedback on https://github.com/sharkdp/hyperfine/pull/448 this
new "--setup" option will steal the "-s" short option from
"--style" (initially this was called "--build" and used the
non-conflicting "-b").
Potential future work:
I'd prefer if this and --cleanup took N number of commands, so you
could do e.g.:
hyperfine -L rev master,next \
-b 'git worktree add /tmp/test-{r}' \
-b 'make -C /tmp/test-{r} all' \
'make -C /tmp/test-{r} test' \
-c 'git worktree remove /tmp/test-{r}'
I.e. a shortcut around not providing these with &&, which makes things
a bit more readable.
But the --cleanup option doesn't do that, so let's just go with what
it's doing for consistency, so for this you'll now need to do:
hyperfine -L rev master,next \
-b 'git worktree add /tmp/test-{r} &&
make -C /tmp/test-{r} all' \
'make -C /tmp/test-{r} test' \
-c 'git worktree remove /tmp/test-{r}'
Extend the --runs=N option added in d78c33b (Added options to specify
the max/exact numbers of runs., 2018-09-09) to support --runs=1
instead of dying with a usage error.
This is useful to do ad-hoc testing of your commands while they might
still have syntax errors, or just for doing one run where you don't
care about the stddev.
Before:
$ /usr/bin/hyperfine -s basic -r 1 -L n 5,10 'sleep 0.{n}'
Error: Number of runs below two
After (-s basic) also works:
$ hyperfine -r 1 -L n 5,10 'sleep 0.{n}'
Benchmark 1: sleep 0.5
Time (abs ≡): 500.6 ms [User: 0.6 ms, System: 0.0 ms]
Benchmark 2: sleep 0.10
Time (abs ≡): 100.8 ms [User: 0.7 ms, System: 0.0 ms]
Summary
'sleep 0.10' ran
4.97 ± 0.00 times faster than 'sleep 0.5'
This likewise combines correctly with -m and -M, probably not very
useful, but if you're tweaking an existing command-line:
$ hyperfine -m 1 -M 1 -L n 5,10 'sleep 0.{n}'
Benchmark 1: sleep 0.5
Time (abs ≡): 500.6 ms [User: 0.5 ms, System: 0.0 ms]
Benchmark 2: sleep 0.10
Time (abs ≡): 100.6 ms [User: 0.6 ms, System: 0.0 ms]
Summary
'sleep 0.10' ran
4.98 ± 0.00 times faster than 'sleep 0.5'
The "± 0.00" output in "faster than" should probably be adjusted too,
or we could keep it for consistency. I didn't implement that because
this is the first time I do anything in Rust, and I ran out of
template to copy when wanting to quickly implement this in
write_benchmark_comparison() in main.rs.
David Peter