You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. run snappy-unittest
What is the expected output? What do you see instead?
How to disable assert, so there is no warning when I run
snappy-unittest.
What version of the product are you using? On what operating system?
snappy-1.0.1
Please provide any additional information below.
./snappy_unittest --run_microbenchmarks=false
Running microbenchmarks.
WARNING: Compiled with assertions enabled, will be slow.
Original issue reported on code.google.com by fengdon...@gmail.com on 7 May 2011 at 1:09
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This has got nothing to do with the unit test; it's just warning you that
you've compiled with suboptimal flags for speed. If you want to compile without
assertions, defining NDEBUG is the standard way, e.g. CFLAGS="-O2 -DNDEBUG"
CXXFLAGS="-O2 -DNDEBUG" ./configure. (This is not Snappy-specific; the same
holds for assert() from the standard C library.)
Original comment by se...@google.com on 7 May 2011 at 2:37
Thanks for quickly response.
warning disappered. but I've another issue:
I test snappy-1.0.1 and lzo2.04 to compare with this result:
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-driver-devel/msg14417.html
but I got a very different result:
origin data total size: 1692240669 (1.7GB text)
snappy compressed time total:7441 ms
snappy decompressed time total:1620 ms
lzo compressed time total:8544 ms
lzo decompressed time total:4607 ms
I used snappy-java, also call lzo in Java.
Original comment by fengdon...@gmail.com on 7 May 2011 at 2:58
UPDATED:
I changed compile options(provided in your answer)
Got a new result:
snappy compressed time total:3878ms
snappy decompressed time total:1589ms
lzo compressed time total:8471ms
lzo decompressed time total:4575ms
does that ok as snappy test result.
Original comment by fengdon...@gmail.com on 7 May 2011 at 3:02
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
fengdon...@gmail.com
on 7 May 2011 at 1:09The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: