benchmark: use strict mode

[Trott]

Apply strict mode to benchmark code.

[jasnell]

@trevnorris @bnoordhuis ... any insight into how this would affect the benchmarks?

[silverwind]

LGTM, I take it this is preparation to lint the benchmarks?

[bnoordhuis]

LGTM

any insight into how this would affect the benchmarks?

Strict mode should not have a negative impact on the benchmark numbers, if that is what you're asking. It might even improve them.

[jasnell]

Yep, that's what I was asking! I'm not overly familiar with the internals
of strict mode so wanted to double check. This LGTM
On Feb 20, 2016 3:18 AM, "Ben Noordhuis" notifications@github.com wrote:

LGTM

any insight into how this would affect the benchmarks?

Strict mode should not have a negative impact on the benchmark numbers, if
that is what you're asking. It might even improve them.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#5336 (comment).

[Trott]

@silverwind asks:

I take it this is preparation to lint the benchmarks?

That's the hope.

[evanlucas]

LGTM

[Fishrock123]

LGTM

[Fishrock123]

maybe add a space on the 2nd line for these?

[Trott]

In our current tests, it is atypical to have a blank line after use strict. (In test/parallel, there are 943 tests that contain use strict. Of those, only 108 contain a blank line after use strict.) So I favored the prevailing convention of no blank line. (Although I see I was not quite 100% consistent with that here. Ugh.)

Anyway, I don't have any strong feelings about it, but that's why I did it the way I did.

[Trott]

Landed in 4bb529d.

It's worth mentioning perhaps that make bench-misc and possibly others were broken before this commit and are still broken, at least on my OS X machine. I'm guessing it's one of:

• I'm Doing It Wrong
• it's a known problem among people who do benchmarking
• people who do benchmarking don't use that and don't care much that it's broken

[MylesBorins]

@Trott would you be willing to backport this to v4.x?

[Trott]

@thealphanerd If you can get #5123 backported first, that will make this one go a little easier.

[MylesBorins]

@Trott the path improvements are not likely to land soon... if ever

[Trott]

OK, I'll backport this along with the others then.