From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Rast Subject: Re: Profiling support? Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 17:54:51 +0100 Message-ID: <87mwhr2e1w.fsf@thomasrast.ch> References: <87d2itc2zv.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87wqgv2hag.fsf@thomasrast.ch> <871tz3xd3d.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 17:54:59 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 1WF4za-0003NJ-UE for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 17:54:59 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752762AbaBPQyz (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Feb 2014 11:54:55 -0500 Received: from ip1.thgersdorf.net ([148.251.9.194]:50510 "EHLO mail.psioc.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752508AbaBPQyy (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Feb 2014 11:54:54 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.psioc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B84CC4D64E6; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 17:54:53 +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 j8beyWxhFBzK; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 17:54:53 +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 B4F244D64BD; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 17:54:52 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <871tz3xd3d.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> (David Kastrup's message of "Sun, 16 Feb 2014 16:59:50 +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: > Thomas Rast writes: > >> 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. > > A solid testing/benchmarking framework would quite seem like a useful > GSoC project as it would make it easy for casual programmers to dip > their feet into their personal bottlenecks, and it would make it much > easier to find worthwhile hotspots for future projects taking the > challenge of speeding up core and/or specific operations. > >> 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. > > I've managed to make use of the outer sandwich layers: the prepare and > the evaluate stuff. I ran my own tests for benchmarking though. Umm, are we even discussing the same thing here? Are you saying you ran profiling-instrumented code under the t/perf/ support code? Sounds nice... -- Thomas Rast tr@thomasrast.ch