Attribute improvements

[WojciechNagorski]

In #1321 I created example IntroEventPipeProfiler which uses the [EventPipeProfiler(EventPipeProfile.CpuSampling)] attribute. I wanted to mark this class as ShortRunJob. The used profiler requires .Net Core 3.0+ so I wanted to select RuntimeMoniker using the [ShortRunJob(RuntimeMoniker.NetCoreApp30)] attribute in the same way as [DryRunJob(RuntimeMoniker.NetCoreApp30)]. But I noticed that there is not an appropriate constructor.

In this PR I added the following constructors to attributes: LongRunJobAttribute, MediumRunJobAttribute, ShortRunJobAttribute, and VeryLongRunJobAttribute.

public XXXRunJobAttribute(RuntimeMoniker runtimeMoniker)
public XXXRunJobAttribute(RuntimeMoniker runtimeMoniker, Jit jit, Platform platform)

I also added missing the AttributeUsage attribute.

[WojciechNagorski]

Example log:

BenchmarkDotNet=v0.12.0.20191219-develop, OS=Windows 10.0.16299.1387 (1709/FallCreatorsUpdate/Redstone3)
Intel Core i7-4770 CPU 3.40GHz (Haswell), 1 CPU, 8 logical and 4 physical cores
Frequency=3312641 Hz, Resolution=301.8739 ns, Timer=TSC
.NET Core SDK=3.0.100
  [Host]                 : .NET Core 2.1.13 (CoreCLR 4.6.28008.01, CoreFX 4.6.28008.01), X64 RyuJIT
  ShortRun-.NET Core 3.0 : .NET Core 3.0.0 (CoreCLR 4.700.19.46205, CoreFX 4.700.19.46214), X64 RyuJIT

Job=ShortRun-.NET Core 3.0  Runtime=.NET Core 3.0  IterationCount=3
LaunchCount=1  WarmupCount=3

[WojciechNagorski]

I've just had to migrate project SevenZipExtractor to .Net Standard
adoconnection/SevenZipExtractor#38 and I used there BenchmarkDotNet adoconnection/SevenZipExtractor#39

If this PR were merged, I would be able to configure my benchmark using the following code:

    [MemoryDiagnoser]
    [ShortRunJob(RuntimeMoniker.NetCoreApp31)]
    [ShortRunJob(RuntimeMoniker.Net47)]
    public class Benchmarks
    {
        [...]
    }

instead of

    [Config(typeof(Config))]
    public class Benchmarks
    {
        private class Config : ManualConfig
        {
            public Config()
            {
                Add(MemoryDiagnoser.Default);
                Add(Job.ShortRun.With(ClrRuntime.Net47));
                Add(Job.ShortRun.With(CoreRuntime.Core31));
            }
        }

        [...]
    }

[adamsitnik]

Overall looks good to me, but please remove the AllowMultiple = true that don't allow for any customization

[adamsitnik]

@WojciechNagorski ping

[WojciechNagorski]

I will fix it. Sorry for late, I was busy.

[DaveSkender]

Quick question on this topic: I'm producing .NET Standard 2.0 projects. Which RuntimeMoniker enum do I use. I see RuntimeMoniker.NetCoreApp20, but no RuntimeMoniker.NetStandard20, or something like that. I thought these were different frameworks, right? Confused.

[timcassell]

@DaveSkender NetStandard2.0 is not a runtime, but a library target. It is a standard that can be consumed in multiple runtimes, like .Net Framework, .Net (Core), and Unity (not supported in BDN). See the docs for a full list of runtimes that supports the standard version.

[DaveSkender]

I sort of get that part, and admittedly this has always confused me, but suppose I'm doing multi-targeting:

<TargetFrameworks>net6.0;netstandard2.1;</TargetFrameworks>

And it produces two DLLs, one for .NET 6.0 and one for .NET Standard 2.1

And now I want to know how they comparatively perform with BenchmarkDotNet, with these attributes:

I might just be confusing the purpose of RuntimeMoniker, but what do I do?

[timcassell]

Oh I see what you mean. There is an open issue for recompiling for target runtime, which is related, but I'm not sure how you would choose between the net6.0 dll and netstandard2.1 dll in the benchmarks. You could try creating a separate project for each, with each project referencing the different dlls, and the benchmark project referencing both of those projects. I tried that before with my own library, but for different versions (not different frameworks) and got an error which I also mentioned in that issue. So I'm not sure if that will work for you.

In any case, you should add your feedback to that issue.

[adamsitnik]

@DaveSkender you are most likely looking for #1706