Skip to content

Conversation

@RenjiSann
Copy link
Collaborator

This MR brings a few changes to simplify and optimize some parts of the checksum computation

It depends on the #9511 MR

@RenjiSann RenjiSann self-assigned this Dec 1, 2025
@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 1, 2025

GNU testsuite comparison:

Congrats! The gnu test tests/cksum/cksum-c is no longer failing!

@RenjiSann RenjiSann changed the title cksum: small improvements cksum: small improvements, l10n Dec 1, 2025
@codspeed-hq
Copy link

codspeed-hq bot commented Dec 1, 2025

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #9532 will degrade performances by 16.39%

Comparing RenjiSann:cksum-improvements (ad13266) with main (22a8732)

Summary

⚡ 1 improvement
❌ 13 regressions
✅ 112 untouched
⏩ 6 skipped1

⚠️ Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.

Benchmarks breakdown

Benchmark BASE HEAD Change
wc_bytes_synthetic[500] 163.9 µs 182.4 µs -10.16%
cksum_blake3 190.7 µs 207.7 µs -8.17%
b64_decode_ignore_garbage_synthetic 149.2 µs 166.8 µs -10.51%
b64_decode_synthetic 149.1 µs 168.8 µs -11.72%
b64_encode_synthetic 146.3 µs 164.4 µs -11.03%
sort_ascii_c_locale 22.7 ms 21.7 ms +4.51%
sort_reverse_mixed 38.2 ms 39.2 ms -2.57%
ls_recursive_wide_tree[(10000, 1000)] 51.3 ms 52.5 ms -2.33%
mv_single_file 129.7 ms 136 ms -4.6%
mv_force_overwrite 125.3 ms 138.4 ms -9.47%
cp_large_file[16] 341.3 µs 358.5 µs -4.8%
split_number_chunks 275.4 µs 287.7 µs -4.27%
rm_single_file 106.6 ms 119.6 ms -10.89%
factor_multiple_u64s[2] 178.3 ms 213.2 ms -16.39%

Footnotes

  1. 6 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports.

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 1, 2025

GNU testsuite comparison:

Skipping an intermittent issue tests/tail/overlay-headers (passes in this run but fails in the 'main' branch)
Congrats! The gnu test tests/cksum/cksum-c is no longer failing!

@RenjiSann RenjiSann force-pushed the cksum-improvements branch 2 times, most recently from 4e9151b to 086d610 Compare December 1, 2025 10:40
@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 1, 2025

GNU testsuite comparison:

Congrats! The gnu test tests/cksum/cksum-c is no longer failing!

@RenjiSann RenjiSann force-pushed the cksum-improvements branch 2 times, most recently from c96ed79 to dc8063d Compare December 1, 2025 18:32
@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 1, 2025

GNU testsuite comparison:

Skip an intermittent issue tests/tail/overlay-headers (fails in this run but passes in the 'main' branch)

@RenjiSann RenjiSann marked this pull request as ready for review December 3, 2025 10:05
@RenjiSann
Copy link
Collaborator Author

RenjiSann commented Dec 3, 2025

It looks like the localized messages I added add a significant overhead to many other tools :/ Not sure how to improve this.

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 4, 2025

GNU testsuite comparison:

Skipping an intermittent issue tests/tail/overlay-headers (passes in this run but fails in the 'main' branch)

Copy link
Contributor

@cakebaker cakebaker left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Done :)

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 4, 2025

GNU testsuite comparison:

Skipping an intermittent issue tests/tail/overlay-headers (passes in this run but fails in the 'main' branch)

@RenjiSann
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Done :)

Thanks, I had forgotten many things ^^'

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 5, 2025

GNU testsuite comparison:

Skipping an intermittent issue tests/tail/overlay-headers (passes in this run but fails in the 'main' branch)

@cakebaker cakebaker merged commit 4c4c59f into uutils:main Dec 5, 2025
127 of 128 checks passed
@cakebaker
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks :)

@RenjiSann RenjiSann deleted the cksum-improvements branch December 5, 2025 10:42
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants