Benchmark: void 0 and undefined in deep call stack - 4

Tests:

compare window.undefined and void 0
function compare(n= 1e3){ let a = undefined; for(let i = 0; i < n; i++){ a === void 0; } } function deep(num){ if (num === 0) { compare(); return; } else { deep(num-1); } } deep(1);
compare window.undefined and window.undefined
function compare(n= 1e3){ let a = undefined; for(let i = 0; i < n; i++){ a === undefined; } } function deep(num){ if (num === 0) { compare(); return; } else { deep(num-1); } } deep(1);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
compare window.undefined and void 0
compare window.undefined and window.undefined

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents two JavaScript microbenchmarks that test the performance of the `void 0` and `undefined` comparisons in different scenarios.

**Options compared:**

There are two test cases:

1. "compare window.undefined and void 0": This test case checks the performance of comparing `undefined` with `void 0` (which is equivalent to `NaN`, or Not a Number).
2. "compare window.undefined and window.undefined": This test case checks the performance of comparing `window.undefined` (which refers to the `undefined` property of the global object, i.e., the `window` object in a browser) with just `undefined`.

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **"compare window.undefined and void 0"**:
	* Pros: This test case checks for performance degradation due to scope chain when comparing `undefined` with `void 0`, which can be an edge case.
	* Cons: It's a relatively simple comparison, and the benchmarking results might not accurately reflect real-world usage scenarios.
2. **"compare window.undefined and window.undefined"**:
	* Pros: This test case checks for performance degradation due to scope chain when comparing `window.undefined` with just `undefined`, which can be a more realistic scenario in certain situations (e.g., when working with legacy code).
	* Cons: It's also a relatively simple comparison, and the benchmarking results might not accurately reflect real-world usage scenarios.

**Libraries and special JS features:**

There are no libraries used in these test cases. However, `void 0` is a special syntax that refers to `NaN` (Not a Number) in JavaScript. It's used when comparing a value with `undefined`, as it helps avoid the issue of returning `false` for some inputs.

**Other considerations:**

* These test cases assume a browser environment, specifically Chrome, which might affect the results.
* The benchmarking results should be interpreted with caution, as they might not accurately reflect real-world usage scenarios or edge cases.

**Alternatives:**

If you want to create similar benchmarks, you can use other testing frameworks like Jest, Mocha, or Cypress. You can also experiment with different browser versions and configurations to see how the performance degradation manifests in different environments.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 10 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
compare window.undefined and void 0	1859799.4 Ops/sec
compare window.undefined and window.undefined	18978.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

void 0 and undefined in deep call stack - 4 (version: 0)

Check performance degradation due to scope chain when undefined is called from deep stack

Comparing performance of: compare window.undefined and void 0 vs compare window.undefined and window.undefined

Created: 10 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

compare window.undefined and void 0

compare window.undefined and window.undefined

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):