[benchmark] Request for call-path / fairness review (GLD.SerializerBenchmark)
- Dominant language
- C
- Stars
- 630
- Forks
- 222
- Avg merge
- 1d 3h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 1
Description
Hello,
I'm Leonid Ganeline. We maintain an open multi-language serializer benchmark:
https://github.com/leo-gan/GLD.SerializerBenchmark
Your library is included in the suite (language: c, harness name: `tinycbor`).
Implementation we use:
https://github.com/leo-gan/GLD.SerializerBenchmark/blob/master/c/src/serializers/ser_tinycbor.c
We would value a short review of whether our measurement is fair and idiomatic:
1. Does our call pattern match how you recommend using the library in performance-sensitive code?
2. Should we change options, encoder/decoder reuse, types, or buffer handling?
3. Is there a better API (or a second entry point worth a separate row in the suite)?
Concrete notes or a small PR against that wrapper would help a lot. We are happy to credit you in the docs.
The repo also includes a short Serialization course (101–401). If something important about your design is easy to misstate, a pointer is welcome—we can update the docs ourselves.
Thank you for maintaining this library.
Best regards,
Leonid Ganeline
Contributor guide
Research direction
Start with the linked GLD.SerializerBenchmark wrapper, c/src/serializers/ser_tinycbor.c, and review its call pattern, options, encoder/decoder reuse, types, and buffer handling. Compare those choices with idiomatic performance-sensitive tinycbor usage; done means providing concrete fairness notes, a small wrapper PR if needed, or pointers for the benchmark course documentation.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- c
- Domain
- performance, tooling
- Issue type
- Refactor
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Quiet
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 45/100