Thrust benchmark targets are confusing

[bernhardmgruber]

For benchmarking CUB and Thrust, I configure (based on an internal benchmarking guide) with:

cmake -DCCCL_ENABLE_BENCHMARKS=YES\
      -DCMAKE_CUDA_ARCHITECTURES='90'\
      -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release\
      -DCCCL_ENABLE_CUB=YES\
      -DCCCL_ENABLE_THRUST=YES\
      -DCCCL_ENABLE_LIBCUDACXX=NO\
      -GNinja ..

This gives me, among others, the following targets:

cub.all.benches: phony
cub.bench.adjacent_difference.subtract_left.base: phony
cub.bench.copy.memcpy.base: phony
...
thrust.all.bench: phony
thrust.bench: phony
thrust.bench.adjacent_difference.basic.base: phony
thrust.bench.adjacent_difference.custom.base: phony
thrust.bench.adjacent_difference.in_place.base: phony
thrust.bench.copy.basic.base: phony
thrust.bench.copy.if.base: phony
...

I can build all CUB benchmarks using the meta target cub.all.benches.

However, the target thrust.all.bench seems to build a single target executable containing a quick benchmark of several thrust algorithms. It also seems to not use nvbench and generally appears to be a bit dated, so I wonder whether it is just a legacy, given the nvbench-based thrust benchmarks.

To improve the situation I would like to at least:

• Have a meta target to build all thrust benchmarks, ideally called thrust.all.benches to mimic the CUB target
• Rename the thrust.all.bench to something that reflects its current statues.

[alliepiper]

Yeah, those are legacy benchmarks. We've kept them around for some internal QA usecases, but I think @gevtushenko may have migrated QA over to the new nvbench ones? We should remove them once they're not necessary.

[alliepiper]

Found the issue about the QA changes: #557

Looks like they can be removed now.

[alliepiper]

I've opened #1901 to remove the old target. I believe that the remaining ask here (to add the thrust.all.benches target) is the outstanding task in #557. Can we merge these issues?

[bernhardmgruber]

Thanks a lot for the big cleanup! I added commented on #557 to add the target, so this issue can be closed. Thx!