google / benchmark / 1286 / 1

92%

master: 92%

Pull #507

travis-ci

<a href="https://github.com/google/benchmark/commit/<a class=hub.com/google/benchmark/commit/08a0561a14d7285c4e97d95890246dd89e4f2ffe">08a0561a1<a href="https://github.com/google/benchmark/commit/08a0561a14d7285c4e97d95890246dd89e4f2ffe">&quot;&gt;Use intXX_t instead of size_t for items/bytes/iterations

</a><a class="double-link" href="https://github.com/google/benchmark/commit/<a class="double-link" href="https://github.com/google/benchmark/commit/7a767012f1c423b37069f6d315b97164b5850271">7a767012f</a>">7a767012f</a><a href="https://github.com/google/benchmark/commit/08a0561a14d7285c4e97d95890246dd89e4f2ffe"> seemingly unintentionally changed the data types
for bytes_processed, items_processed, and iterations to size_t. On 32-bit systems, the
bytes_processed and items_processed variables easily overflow, and often report fewer
items/second for faster code. The fact that overflow chances depends on architecture
and even ABI (e.g. x64 vs x32 ABI on x86-64) makes it particularly annoying.
iterations counter is made to use uint32_t internally because it is incremented in the hot
loop, and incrementing uint64_t is slow on some 32-bit platforms (e.g. Asm.js). However,
the public interface State.iterations() is changed to return int64_t.

1476 of 1698 relevant lines covered (86.93%)

4348005.05 hits per line