nanobench VS benchmark

An alternative is tracking the number of instructions a test executes: https://github.com/martinus/nanobench

Nano bench is a great library with low overhead. https://github.com/martinus/nanobench

I've done a relatively simple test of taking random doubles (between 0 and 1), converting them to a C string via std::to_chars and then converting that C string back to a double via std::from_chars vs his xeerx::chars_to and got the following results on my machine via nanobench:

I like https://nanobench.ankerl.com/

Of course, the best way to benchmark is nanobench: https://nanobench.ankerl.com/

I've created robin-hood-hashing and nanobench, and recently made some contributions to Bitcoin and doxygen

Right. Regex runtime construction is known to be slow, so ideally the state machinery construction is built at compile time (boost.xpressive, ctre). Also, boost.regex is faster than most of the std implementations if compile time isn’t possible. And if that’s no good rewrite without regex. Since it sounds like it’s all encapsulated at least it would be easy to measure the options. These days I use this one to compare https://nanobench.ankerl.com/

You can check the API of nanobench which also doesn't use macros, as far as I have used it.

I've tried again with your latest changes and decided to use https://github.com/martinus/nanobench for a better benchmark and got the following output:

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.