From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Rast Subject: Re: Profiling support? Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 16:44:55 +0100 Message-ID: <87wqgv2hag.fsf@thomasrast.ch> References: <87d2itc2zv.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: David Kastrup X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Feb 16 16:45:43 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WF3uZ-0000El-Bx for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 16:45:43 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752530AbaBPPpL (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Feb 2014 10:45:11 -0500 Received: from ip1.thgersdorf.net ([148.251.9.194]:50281 "EHLO mail.psioc.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751577AbaBPPpK (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Feb 2014 10:45:10 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.psioc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 812BC4D6584; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 16:45:08 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at psioc.net Received: from mail.psioc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.psioc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id xU7PedL4wJ2p; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 16:44:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from hexa.thomasrast.ch (46-126-8-85.dynamic.hispeed.ch [46.126.8.85]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.psioc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9E5C04D64BD; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 16:44:58 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <87d2itc2zv.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> (David Kastrup's message of "Tue, 11 Feb 2014 12:17:40 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: David Kastrup writes: > Looking in the Makefile, I just find support for coverage reports using > gcov. Whatever is there with "profile" in it seems to be for > profile-based compilation rather than using gprof. [...] > Is there a reason there are no prewired recipes or advice for using > gprof on git? Is there a way to get the work done, namely seeing the > actual distribution of call times (rather than iterations) using gcov so > that this is not necessary? No reason I'm aware of, other than that nobody ever wrote it. Note that I wouldn't exactly be surprised if the gcov targets had bitrotted without anyone noticing. I haven't heard of any heavy users. I originally wrote them to do some basic test coverage analysis, but that's about it. -- Thomas Rast tr@thomasrast.ch