test VS benchmark

The de-facto standard for testing an Elm application is elm-test. However, as noted in the README:

Once all that handwritten C code was solid, I needed to make sure the C generated from Elm was working properly. I found the source for the core library's unit tests and decided to port them into my project and add some of my own tests. You can run the tests in WebAssembly in your browser too. (Funnily enough, one of the biggest challenges was getting the Elm Test framework itself to run! The framework is more complex than the tests themselves. I still need to come back to the fuzzer tests!)

Lesson Learned: Elm has built in recursion improvements for a variety of positive reasons, and you should think in recursion to solve looping problems. Use property/fuzz tests and bounds checking with early exit to prevent this from locking up your UI (i.e if > 9000, omg abort). If you’re algorithm is reasonable, but the data set is just gigantic, offload to a server instead for more horsepower. Or Workers if you don’t have server chops, can’t upload the large data, or don’t trust your server devs. (“But Doc, I’m the server dev!” Good joke. Ever̸y̴b̸ody laugh. Roll on s̵͓̆nâ̶̱re drum. Curtains.)

I'm aware of one by Google that I used a couple times, but IMO it's better to capture real runtime data from a fully-operational process than to carve out the benchmarkable bits and test them in isolation, so I track information during program testing and print it all to a log instead of using things like that.

If you just want to do some quick benchmarks, you can just use std::chrono::high_resolution_clock::now(). Call it before the code that you are benchmarking and then immediately after. Take them away and you have your duration. If you want to use a proper benchmarking tool then I can totally recommend Google Benchmark. Fantastic benchmarking tool. Honourable mention would be Quick Bench which is an online tool that uses Google Benchmark.

I tried to install google benchmark(https://github.com/google/benchmark) in my ubuntu machine by :

We don't know if it's a lie until we verify it and that's not difficult, you have a quicksort implementation in a couple of languages, you'll need to pass the necessary parameters to show the time needed by a function call to execute to the compiler or interpreter or you may use use a library(like benchmark for C++) and you're good to go.

If you are uncertain about the performance characteristics of a function you should ALWAYS benchmark it. Googles Benchmark library is wonderful for quick micro benchmarks. For more complex things, perhaps look into profiling and then look at invocation counts of copy constructors.

Your compiler may be optimising away your loop, there. I typically use a micro-benchmarking tool for these types of tests. You could try Google Benchmark. It’s available in most OS’ package managers, but pretty easy to build from source if not

C++: C++ has quite a number of benchmarking libraries some of the recent ones involving C++ 20's flexibility. The most notable being Google Bench and UT. C does not have many specific benchmarking libraries, but you can easily integrate C code with C++ benchmarking libraries in order to test the performance of your C code.