* Statistics: add support for percentage unit in addition to time
I think, `stddev` statistic is useful, but confusing.
What does it mean if `stddev` of `1ms` is reported?
Is that good or bad? If the `median` is `1s`,
then that means that the measurements are pretty noise-less.
And what about `stddev` of `100ms` is reported?
If the `median` is `1s` - awful, if the `median` is `10s` - good.
And hurray, there is just the statistic that we need:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_variation
But, naturally, that produces a value in percents,
but the statistics are currently hardcoded to produce time.
So this refactors thinkgs a bit, and allows a percentage unit for statistics.
I'm not sure whether or not `benchmark` would be okay
with adding this `RSD` statistic by default,
but regales, that is a separate patch.
Refs. https://github.com/google/benchmark/issues/1146
* Address review notes
Much like it makes sense to enumerate all the families,
it makes sense to enumerate stuff within families.
Alternatively, we could have a global instance index,
but i'm not sure why that would be better.
This will be useful when the benchmarks are run not in order,
for the tools to sort the results properly.
It may be useful for those wishing to further post-process JSON results,
but it is mainly geared towards better support for run interleaving,
where results from the same family may not be close-by in the JSON.
While we won't be able to do much about that for outputs,
the tools can and perhaps should reorder the results to that
at least in their output they are in proper order, not run order.
Note that this only counts the families that were filtered-in,
so if e.g. there were three families, and we filtered-out
the second one, the two families (which were first and third)
will have family indexes 0 and 1.
* [JSON] add threads and repetitions to the json output, for better ide…
[Tests] explicitly check for thread == 1
[Tests] specifically mark all repetition checks
[JSON] add repetition_index reporting, but only for non-aggregates (i…
* [Formatting] Be very, very explicit about pointer alignment so clang-format can not put pointers/references on the wrong side of arguments.
[Benchmark::Run] Make sure to use explanatory sentinel variable rather than a magic number.
* Do not pass redundant information
It is incorrect to say that an aggregate is computed over
run's iterations, because those iterations already got averaged.
Similarly, if there are N repetitions with 1 iterations each,
an aggregate will be computed over N measurements, not 1.
Thus it is best to simply use the count of separate reports.
Fixes#586.
This is related to @BaaMeow's work in https://github.com/google/benchmark/pull/616 but is not based on it.
Two new fields are tracked, and dumped into JSON:
* If the run is an aggregate, the aggregate's name is stored.
It can be RMS, BigO, mean, median, stddev, or any custom stat name.
* The aggregate-name-less run name is additionally stored.
I.e. not some name of the benchmark function, but the actual
name, but without the 'aggregate name' suffix.
This way one can group/filter all the runs,
and filter by the particular aggregate type.
I *might* need this for further tooling improvement.
Or maybe not.
But this is certainly worthwhile for custom tooling.
* Counter(): add 'one thousand' param.
Needed for https://github.com/google/benchmark/pull/654
Custom user counters are quite custom. It is not guaranteed
that the user *always* expects for these to have 1k == 1000.
If the counter represents bytes/memory/etc, 1k should be 1024.
Some bikeshedding points:
1. Is this sufficient, or do we really want to go full on
into custom types with names?
I think just the '1000' is sufficient for now.
2. Should there be a helper benchmark::Counter::Counter{1000,1024}()
static 'constructor' functions, since these two, by far,
will be the most used?
3. In the future, we should be somehow encoding this info into JSON.
* Counter(): use std::pair<> to represent 'one thousand'
* Counter(): just use a new enum with two values 1000 vs 1024.
Simpler is better. If someone comes up with a real reason
to need something more advanced, it can be added later on.
* Counter: just store the 1000 or 1024 in the One_K values directly
* Counter: s/One_K/OneK/
