RE: "Remove Backspace" test harness

[Bookwalter, D. <Dan...@hs...>]

 well if you guys really want to test 'any' of your VI's i have someone
working where i work that can challengE ANY-thing you can come up with!!!!

just me being frustrated, no matter what i do i cant make these programs
tight enough for this/these individual(s) not to break it/them....

hell one of these people broke XP within 30 mins...  i had to completly
re-install XP....

have a good weekend all.........

Dan


-----Original Message-----
From: ALTENBACH,CHRISTIAN
To: ope...@li...
Sent: 4/2/04 12:56 PM
Subject: Re: "Remove Backspace" test harness


> can just pick up were we left off and everyone can get up to speed on 
> the issues without too much effort.


I see several issues that must be discussed.

(1) A good set of test strings.
===============================
I would think that in real life such a VI typically encounters
relatively
short inputs with only a few \b characters. (In this respect, the
current
test string is quite pathological).

A VI needs to be fast under all kinds of inputs and should not encounter
slowdowns under certain conditions, so I suggest the following set of
strings (to be expanded as needed):
- an empty string
- A short string (currently I use
"XX\b\b\b\bAAAA\b\b\bBCC\bDXXX\b\b\b"=ABCD)
- Jim's long string
- A string of 1000000 characters (no \b!)
- A string of 1000000 \b characters
- A string of 1000000 characters, all even numbered characters are "\b".

Suggestion for scoring:
The times for each string are normalized to the fastest time (e.g. if
one
candidate is 10% slower, it would get a 1.1). Winner will have lowest
average score, which could be as low as 1 if it is fastest on all
strings
(unlikely?).

(2) VI settings
===============
I am not sure if we should force priorities/reentrant on the VIs as
currently done, but if so, what should the settings be?

(3) VI execution
================
There are several ways to execute the VIs. Jim uses "invoke node" while
my
current VI uses "call by reference node". Jim sets the actual VI to
"time
critical", I set the core tester VI to "time critical", while setting
the
test subject to subroutine.

What is better and why? What more realistically models the use in a real
application?

(4) Timing
==========
Due to the ms timer resolution, the test must last at least a few
hundred ms
to get a few significant digits. Fast running VIs need to be called
inside
a loop, with the loop count tuned to the execution time.
I would not use any averaging of runs, but do multiple runs, then pick
the
fastest. (All OS disturbances tend to lengthen the time!) 


'later
Christian


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials
Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of
GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system
administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click
_______________________________________________
OpenGToolkit-Developers mailing list
Ope...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opengtoolkit-developers

_____________________________________________________________________ 
This electronic mail transmission contains confidential information 
intended only for the person(s) named. Any use, distribution, copying 
or disclosure by any other person is strictly prohibited. If you 
received this transmission in error, please send an electronic mail 
message to pos...@hs....