ut VS benchmark.js

I don't think stepping through static_assert is a thing? Curious if it is, though. Since constexpr is either run-time or compile-time and static_assert is not a poor man's debugging facility could be to -Dstatic_assert(...) assert(__VA_ARGS__) and gdb the code. Alternatively, a more refined solution would be to use an UT framework (for example https://github.com/boost-ext/ut) which helps with that. IMHO, TDD can also limit the requirement of stepping into the code and with gurantees that the code is memory safe and UB safe there is less need for sanitizers and valgrind etc. depending on the coverage.

It was not easy, I had to modify Boost UT to get it to run my tests. It doesn't support type-parametrized tests when the type parameter is non-copiable, which was the case for me. This is a symptom of a larger issue, which is that it relies on std::apply and std::tuple to generate the type-parametrized tests, which in turns requires instantiating the tuple and the contained objects (even though these instances aren't actually used; eh). That's a no go for me, since I need to carefully monitor when instance are created, and this was throwing off my test code. I had to effectively disable these checks to get it to run without failures. Then there was a similar issue with expect(), which doesn't work if part of the expression is non-copiable. I reported these issues to them.

https://github.com/boost-ext/ut (for better user interface when defining tests without macros)

https://github.com/boost-ext/ut from Kris Jusiak is worth checking

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.

UT

In Boost.UT there is a number of different styles to add a parametrized test case. All of them are pretty cryptic bue to heavy isage of oeverloaded operators of custom "non-public" classes. Except for the for-loop method, in all other methods the list of parameter values goes after the test procedure definition. I find this inconvenient, as I want to see list of parameter value next to the test name. This is what I used to from the times I was coding a lot of unit tests in C#.

We have a series of benchmark suites using https://benchmarkjs.com/. Every CI run saves the results of the benchmarks to a json file that we persist across runs and can compare against.

We use https://benchmarkjs.com/ to get statistically significant results, then write the results with the git hash to get a view of performance after every CI build.

We used Benchmark.js for benchmarking and piscina as a pool for worker threads. benchmark.js was used to run the same code in 2 scenarios - one using a single thread and one using the piscina pool. The degree of parallelism was passed to the program via an environment variable. The test code is present in worker.js in both the cases.

JavaScript: For JavaScript, there are already some good tools for benchmarking, most notable being Benchmark.js and Bench-Rest. Using these tools will allow you to be able to properly test the performance of your code. It is generally given that you want to use software already tested for acceptable benchmarking as the demos shown today are often trivial and may not give all the results you want.

Benchmark.js

https://benchmarkjs.com is what you want.