criterion.rs VS rust

The three popular options for benchmarking in Rust are: libtest bench, Criterion, and Iai.

Holy crap. I was just writing a blog to complain about the state of Rust benchmarking and I think this might address most of my points. The biggest one is the ability to have benchmarks collocated within the library like tests which is the biggest annoyance.

It’s also nice to see that it can report multiple counters in parallel. I put up a similar feature[1] for criterion recently but I fear the project isn’t being maintained anymore…

Haven’t looked deeply into divan yet but the other requirements I have for criterion’s power is to run tests with statistical guarantees on the results, terminate quickly when statistical significance is reached (—quick), provide a comparison of the delta from a previous benchmark, and to run async code. Wonder how this stacks up.

[1] https://github.com/bheisler/criterion.rs/pull/722

criterion for benchmarks,

For an extra optimization, you might look into techniques like branchless code, turning array of structs into struct of arrays for better cache utilization/lowering branch mispredictions. There is many talks on YouTube how to actually measure and improve performance of native code. And for rust there is a criterion.rs for benchmarking.

https://github.com/bheisler/criterion.rs is good for tests like that. It will give you much more than a single number and handle things like outliers. This makes identifying noisy tests simpler.

I have tried many ways but I think is not possible. I put it on https://github.com/bheisler/criterion.rs/issues/631.

Criterion is still the gold standard.

Pros for Criterion over the stdlib: https://github.com/bheisler/criterion.rs#features

Downsides of Criterion: https://bheisler.github.io/criterion.rs/book/user_guide/know...

Here's an example of someone citing a disagreement between CRT and shell32:

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44650

This in addition to the Rust CVE mentioned elsewhere in the thread which was rooted in this issue:

https://blog.rust-lang.org/2024/04/09/cve-2024-24576.html

Here are some quick programs to test contrasting approaches. I don't have examples of inputs where they parse differently on hand right now, but I know they exist. This was also a problem that was frequently discussed internally when I worked at MSFT.

    #include 

> instead of choosing a certain numbered version of the random library (if I remember correctly) I let cargo download the latest version which had a completely different API.

Yeah, they didn't follow the instructions and got burned. I still think that multiple things went wrong simultaneously for that experience. I wonder if more prevalent uses of `#[doc(alias = "name")]` being leveraged by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120730 (which now that I check only accounts for methods and not functions, I should get on that!) so that when changing APIs around people at least get a slightly better experience.

Almost fixed the compiler: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/123325

Rust: A secure, efficient, and modern programming language (omitting ten thousand words). You can simply follow the installation instructions provided on the official website.

Recently did something similar in Rust but for generating SVGs. We've adopted it for snapshot testing of cargo and rustc's output. Don't have a good PR handy for showing Github's rendering of changes in the SVG (text, side-by-side, swiping) but https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/121877/files has newly added SVGs.

To see what is supported, see the screenshot in the docs: https://docs.rs/anstyle-svg/latest/anstyle_svg/

We strongly believe in Rust as a powerful language for building production-grade software, especially for systems like ours that run alongside Kubernetes.

The above Assert<{N % 2 == 1}> requires #![feature(generic_const_exprs)] and the nightly toolchain. See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/76560 for more info.